CVS "just works?"

[Mark A. Flacy]

I must have missed all those other threads.

I'm curious about a use case where there is no perceived value to having atomic multi-file commits.

Chris Hecker <checker at d6.com> wrote:
>
>Can we please stop the CVS threads?  bzr is having enough issues 
>recently without the mailing list turning into a giant redundant flame
>war.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>On 2013-09-09 13:07, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
>> On Monday, September 09, 2013 09:13:35 AM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>>
>>  > On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, JP Vossen wrote:
>>
>>  > > have to disagree there. CVS is fundamentally broken because of
>the
>> way it
>>
>>  > > does everything "per file."
>>
>>  >
>>
>>  > For a *lot* of workloads, this is better than the models
>>
>>  > used by svn, bzr or *shudder* git.
>>
>> Those would be workloads where each file that you have under version
>> control is totally unrelated to every other file that is being
>version
>> controlled. Otherwise, you'd be mildly interested in the ability to
>make
>> atomic changes to more than one file at once.
>>
>> I'm mildly interested in an example of one of these workloads.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mark A. Flacy
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20130909/da7c9dc6/attachment.html>