Les Mikesell escribió:
CVS has problems caused by all of the history being kept in a single
file (it doesn't understand directory operations like renames), but the
Oh, and the fact that commits are not atomic so that if two chagesets
collide (well, CVS doesn't have notion of changeset, only of single file
changes) very bad things can happen (one changeset locks a file that the
other changeset has to update) and you get a corrupt copy that has to be
fixed.
Subversion, git and Mercurial (and others) addressed this issue adding
atomicity to the chagesets (see that with these VCS files don't have
version there are changeset versions).
up side is that you can track development 'forwards' from any point.
Uhh???
$ hg up -r SOME_OLD_REV
(same with svn or git-update).
With svn, there's no way to start from an earlier tag and follow future
tags/branches of that same file.
What? Les do you really know what you're talking about?
This must be even worse in distributed
VC's where the changes might not even exist in your copy of the
repository. Doesn't it bother you to know you might be repeating
someone else's mistakes because you can't track all the other changes
from a given point?
What mistake if it's not in the repository?
The same thing would happen with CVS if you were coding without
commiting to the main server. Nobody will be able to know what you are
doing. Same if your coworkers don't update regularly. How can they know
what you fixed?
In distributed VCS you use pull and push for this.
