On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 06:59 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 21:46 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 21:07 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:33:17PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > > > > Right but we're talking at cross-purposes. What I mean is, are we using > > > > these now with the fedora-extras and fedora-core dist-cvs? If so, what > > > > are the commands you're running to do that? > > > > > > > > Although we talk about branches with dist-cvs, there's no cvs branches > > > > in the repository that I'm aware of. So I'm wondering if Karel has some > > > > commands that he's using now or if this is a "If we use real branches in > > > > the next SCM, it'll give us the ability to do operation Xyz in a better > > > > way." > > > > > > Well, there's nothing to really prevent someone from using a branch for > > > private development. The buildsys won't build off of it, but you can > > > commit stuff to a branch if you'd like. And of course, there's also the > > > tagging we _do_ use. Which is similar to a CVS branch. You can actually > > > do the merge command using tag names too. > > > > > > I can see some use cases for using branching with git, simply because > > > branches are trivial to create and work with. > > > > > Yeah -- branches in subversion and bazaar are trivial, > How comes you consider branches in CVS to be more complex? > > I for one (Many year's of CVS power-usage), have never found subversion > branches easy to use (I've never used bazaar nor git). > cvs doesn't separate the concept of tags and branches. It also works on individual files rather than whole trees. It could just be a limitation of my brain but those two things made branches a lot harder for me to understand in cvs. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
