CVS "just works?"
Mark A. Flacy
mflacy at verizon.net
Mon Sep 9 21:52:12 UTC 2013
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
>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
>> 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
>> controlled. Otherwise, you'd be mildly interested in the ability to
>> 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...
More information about the bazaar