Browse thread
[OT] Rant about VCS
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2004-12-21 (22:36) |
From: | Erik de Castro Lopo <ocaml-erikd@m...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] [OT] Rant about VCS: Conclusions |
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:03:30 -0800 Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> wrote: > Regarding merging, unlike CVS, Subversion has changesets, so merging is > simply picking the changeset(s) you want from one path and applying it > to another: Ahh, now I remember the problem subversion has with merging across branches with respect to Arch. Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have heard, subversion is not able to recognise if a changeset has already been applied or not and trying to apply a changeset which has already been applied can lead to merge conflicts which need manual intervention to correct. Arch OTOH keeps a log of all changesets applied to a tree. That means that if you have three branches A, B and C, all with the same common ancestor you can merge A -> B and then B -> C. Now if you try to merge A -> C Arch is clever enough to figure out which changesets in A have already been applied to C and which ones haven't, and then only apply the ones that have not been applied. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ I have found that good programmers either do not make the kind of mistakes that Ada can prevent, or insert enough checks that they catch those mistakes about as efficiently as an Ada environment can. At that point, the use of Ada gives no further productivity advantage.