Arthur Barrett
2009-08-31 05:08:47 UTC
Hi Bob,
face) I don't think that is what the poster was asking about!
popular though. I always considered that, perhaps wrongly, rather
special purpose.
Err, well, the 'special purpose' of knowing where the checked out (edited) copies are...
It's been a very long time since I looked at the CVS 1.x code for this, but from memory it shows a lot of sign that over the years different programmers had quite different ideas as to what the purpose of it all was.
However more generally I was pointing out that most version control systems do make some attempt at tracking the working copies, including CVS. Your experience (and mine) is that they do such a poor job of it that it's considerably easier to disregard the 'feature'. However I think it's always worth remembering that technically the feature is there - or else when people get into 'comparisons' between CVS and ClearCase or SVN we end up with all these lists that show CVS doing nothing and all these other tools doing everything.
The facts are: that CVS does no poorer a job of it as all the others, and it should be credited as such.
Regards,
Arthur
Many version control systems (including CVS) that I have used do track
where working copies are. Most do it very poorly.
We are talking about the history file here, right? (me makes a painedwhere working copies are. Most do it very poorly.
face) I don't think that is what the poster was asking about!
To see if the CVS server is tracking working copies - use the 'cvs
editors' command.
Oh, sure, the 'cvs editors' command. I don't think that is typical oreditors' command.
popular though. I always considered that, perhaps wrongly, rather
special purpose.
It's been a very long time since I looked at the CVS 1.x code for this, but from memory it shows a lot of sign that over the years different programmers had quite different ideas as to what the purpose of it all was.
However more generally I was pointing out that most version control systems do make some attempt at tracking the working copies, including CVS. Your experience (and mine) is that they do such a poor job of it that it's considerably easier to disregard the 'feature'. However I think it's always worth remembering that technically the feature is there - or else when people get into 'comparisons' between CVS and ClearCase or SVN we end up with all these lists that show CVS doing nothing and all these other tools doing everything.
The facts are: that CVS does no poorer a job of it as all the others, and it should be credited as such.
Regards,
Arthur