> > Can you elaborate? I thought that this
> > "real DAG" structure is more or less
> > equivalent to each developer having
> > his owm CVS repository...
>
> Nope. CVS uses RCS, and RCS only knows about trees, not graphs.
> Specifically, branch merges are not tagged as such, and as a result
> CVS is unable to pick up the best grandparent when doing a merge.
> That's the main reason of why branching under CVS is so painful
> (forgetting about the performance issues).
I see. But I still somehow can not understand how merging is
possible. Merge possibly means work-by-hand, right? So it is not as
simple as noting that 1.8 and 1.7.1.1 were merged into 1.9, no? [And
what if developer did really crap job at merging that, like dropping
all changes from 1.7.1.1?]
> > If I fixed CVS renames, added atomic
> > commits, splits and merges, and gave each
> > developer his own CVS repository,
> > would I be in same league as bk?
> > Ie 10 times slower but equivalent
> > functionality?
>
> Nope. You'll find out that this per-developper repository quickly
> needs to become a per-branch repository, and even need you need to
> write somewhere when the merges with other repositories happen, and
> you end up with the DAG again.
Yep, that's what I wanted to know. [I see per-branch repository is
pain, but it helps me to understand that.]
Thanx for your explanations,
Pavel
-- Horseback riding is like software... ...vgf orggre jura vgf serr. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/