On 4/21/05, Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
FWIW we've been using SVN for a year and a half now and we've never had a merge problem.
That's good to hear. Since I've only used SVN on that job I'd suspect my problems could be related to the way the repository was used, or misused as the case may be. Although there is a documented deficiency with SVN not using the branch and revision history to do the merge.
But CVS is just as bad if not worse in this regard, unless you lay down tags everywhere. Or if you use CVSNT, which is the only open-source tool I've encountered that supports history sensitive merging. As large projects are finding out (gcc, Mono), having tons of branches and tags slows down CVS a great deal after a while. Merging is not history sensitive in SVN nor is it in CVS, so you must follow best practices to be able to merge to/from a branch more than once successfully. In CVS this means tagging like a maniac, and in SVN its a simple matter of leaving an explicit comment about your merge point when you do merge code. -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com