sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Pieter Lenaerts <pieter.lenaerts AT telenet.be>
- To: "sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org" <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:27:31 +0100
Op wo, 15-03-2006 te 23:42 +0100, schreef Andrew "ruskie" Levstik:
> > WC1: svn update
> > WC2: svn update
> > WC1: edit devel
> > WC2: edit devel
> > WC1: svn commit
> > WC2: svn commit -> complains that file is out of date
> > WC2: svn update -> assuming no overlap, so this merges fine
> > WC2: svn commit
> > WC3: svn update -> this gives commits from 1 and 2 in WC3
> > WC3: svn merge -r committed:head devel/section/spell test/section/spell
> > WC3: svn commit
> > done :)
> >
> > if a line is concurrently edited by multiple developers there will of
> > course be a conflict.
> >
>
> Erm that sounds HORRIBLE...
this is what you get with any system with a central repo.
if you use distributed with a central repo, you got two options, either
you send patches, which will then be integrated or you push changes up.
if you send patches, you don't have the same repository anymore as the
central one, so you'd have to clone/branch/... it every time == a lot of
traffic.
if you push changes up, you'll need to get the changesets from other
devs before you can push yours up or changeset order will be disrupted,
resulting in diverging repos. not sure if there's a scm that allows to
push changes up and afterwards pulling down missing changesets,
submitted after your last pull but before your current push.
>
> Anyway I'm basiraly in favour of svk...
> I'm using it myself though not on anything as complex as our grimoires and
> I haven't tried any merges as of yet...
>
> I think sandalle was trying something...
let's hear it :)
> As for stability it so far hasn't crashed for me nor caused any
> other general side effects...
>
> I like svk mostly for two reasons...
>
> It's remarkably perforce like to use and
> It supports both a centralized and a decentralized model.
you can force any decentralized model to the centralized side, simply by
all synching to the same repo.
>
> Just my input on this...
>
--
Pieter Lenaerts
Sportstraat 27
9000 Gent
tel. +32485189222
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/16/2006
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement was: SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement was: SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Mathieu L., 03/19/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/20/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.