develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: Perforce vs CVS

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Russ Allbery
Date:
July 25, 2000 21:11
Subject:
Re: Perforce vs CVS
Message ID:
ylk8e9bkem.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
Simon Cozens <simon@cozens.net> writes:

> Three-way merging, and easy branching and integrating of code paths. So
> if, say, I want to go away and hack on Unicode stuff, I could
> (theoretically) branch the entire source tree, do my work, and then it
> shouldn't be hard to reintegrate it when I'm done.

> The key to this is the three-way merge, which provides a nice easy way
> of comparing the original, my changes and your changes. It means you can
> have several people hacking on the same file, without lock contention
> and without CVS's nargery.

Er... CVS has done branching and three-way merging since the beginning of
CVS; that was one of the whole original points behind CVS.  So I guess I'm
missing the thrust of this point of Perforce.  I've been curious for a bit
what makes Perforce so much better too, so I'd love to hear more.

Is it just that three-way merges are easier/better?  How so?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About