Re: Perforce vs CVS
[email protected] (Russ Allbery)
| Newsgroups | perl.bootstrap |
|---|---|
| Organization | The Eyrie |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Simon Cozens <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>