Re: Perforce vs CVS

Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
>
>Several of the points on the Perforce page are significantly out of date;
>CVS hasn't been built on top of a separate RCS implementation for some
>time now, for example.  CVS has the significant advantage for me of using
>RCS files for its repository, which means that the repository is in a
>well-documented and fairly easy-to-edit *text* format rather than some
>sort of database as is used by some other VC products.  I'm not sure how
>transparent the Perforce repository is.

Perforce seems to have changes (at least for text files) as RCS files 
too - at least the superficially look like RCS - even down to ,v
The state if changes etc. is cached in in berkely-db-like .db files.

>
>I would tend to be extremely skeptical of Perforce's bit about how they
>support more locking methods.  This was an *intentional* design decision
>in CVS, not some design flaw that should be corrected or a feature that
>it's missing.

So how does CVS avoid corrupt files when I try and change sv.c from Dallas,
Sarathy from Canada, and Graham from UK ?



-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons