Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 21:12:23 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Joseph Koshy <jkoshy@FreeBSD.ORG>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: proposal: simple cvs mod to handle shared checked-out source trees Message-ID: <199812030412.VAA11290@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199812030236.SAA20656@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199812030154.RAA08114@hub.freebsd.org> <199812030236.SAA20656@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Shared CVS tree ] > This method is much more desireable then the RCS mess we were > using before. Why? It seems that RCS is a better solution to the problem. Just tell everyone not to use locks, or better yet modify RCS to not use locks on the system. :) > It is not desireable to duplicate the checked out tree for each staff > member for many reasons, including the fact that the checked out tree > represents active system control files (such as DNS zones and router > config files). > A separate copy makes the job of adjusting the control > files too complex... the staff member would have to checkout the file into > his own private tree, edit it, commit it back, and then cvs update the > system 'active' checked-out tree. Then automate the process. Again, CVS was designed so that each user would have his own copy of the tree. That's the 'CVS' way. 'Concurrent Version System', not 'Serialized User Version System'. :) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199812030412.VAA11290>