Re: [spam score 3.12/10.0 -pobox] Re: Perforce vs CVS

On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:18:28PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:26:39PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > Others have answered some of this. But one thing that comes to mind
> > is the way it groups multiple files changes in to a "change". In CVS
> > it is not so easy to figure out what other files were submitted at the
> > same time as a given change to file X.
> 
> You can tag sets of files.  I often tag a release of a CPAN module
> with something like "cvs tag VERSION=0_10" or something.
> Unfortunately, one must remember to do this manually AFAIK.

That is not the same. That is just adding a label to a set of files. Perforce
remebers which files are submitted together in a single commit, this is
very useful. CVS does not do this as it does not have a single commit database, but
instead places the commit log into each RCS file, so you have to figure out
for yourself which files were commited together.

> An interesting alternative feature is CVS's history logging
> facilities, but I'm sure Perforce has something similar.

perforce provides greater functionality in this arena IMO.
 
> Something CVS does which is kinda cute, but not critical, is "cvs
> annotate".  It produces a listing of the source each line with a stamp
> of when it was checked in, what version and by who.  We were talking
> at the conference about how interesting it would be to have a sort of
> Prime Radiant (Second Foundation) for Perl.

There are tools freely avaliable that can do this for perforce, but they are
not part of the p4 client.

Graham.