Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:15:53 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: laying down tags Message-ID: <199906211715.LAA04383@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906192347000.47432-100000@picnic.mat.net> References: <69071.929844133@zippy.cdrom.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906192347000.47432-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I notice that in the last 6 months a change has occurred in how we use > > > our cvs tools, in that there's a great increase in the usage of tags. > > Would you mind giving one example where not having tags hurt us? Sure. When multiple developers are trying to work together as well as track -current, everything has to be done by hand. Case in point is the work that the VM guys want to do. It would be alot easier for both the developers *AND* the testers to share code this way. This also makes it much easier for the developer to 'merge' in changes made to the main branch, rather than having to hand-merge it in everytime, build diffs, and re-distribute them. The other developers then need to back-out the original diffs, re-apply the new diffs, which is alot more work. With CVS, this is done *ONCE* for each change (by CVS), hence the amount of work to help out is much less. What 'cheaper' way could this kind of easy integration be done, short of using the 'magic' branch tags in the FreeBSD CVS version that I don't if anyone has ever used because I don't think anyone knows exactly if it works, and how to make it work. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906211715.LAA04383>