Uwe Brauer writes:
>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull
<stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
> Uwe Brauer writes:
> Why? That is the correct thing to do in this case, since you want
> a result that ignores VC.
Not really I want to use vc for my purposes. That is at a given file 2
authors made changes simultaneously.
vc.el can handle this, and will do the right thing automatically. RCS
cannot. In order to use vc/RCS for this case, you *must* use a
workflow something like the following (at shell level, I'm not sure
how this would work in vc.el offhand).
Author 1:
co shared-file.txt # --> v1.2 of file
rcs -b 1.2.1 # note branch number is same as author number
ci -l shared-file.txt
# edit file
ci shared-file.txt # --> v1.2.1.1 of file
Author 2:
co shared-file.txt # --> v1.2 of file
rcs -b 1.2.2 # note branch number is same as author number
ci -l shared-file.txt
# edit file
ci shared-file.txt # --> v1.2.2.1 of file
Editor:
;; uses vc-merge to merge v1.2.1.1 and v1.2.2.1
C-x v v ; should check in v1.3 as the merged file
RCS *does not* support the above workflow automatically. That was the
initial innovation of CVS (the network server stuff came later). CVS
(and Subversion) servers being a bitch to administer, I suggest that
you move to one of git, Mercurial, or Bazaar for your VCS, because
they are quite happy to operate without the cost of a server, and
their servers are very easy to administer if you later decide to set
one up. All of them can handle your workflow seamlessly. You may
find that vc.el supports some of them better than others; I don't have
much information on that yet.
I know that you'd like to stick with RCS because it's familiar to you
and all your collaborators have it and know it already. I am
nevertheless *quite* confident that the effort of changing to any of
git, hg, or bzr will be repaid within the week! If you decide to
optimize the choice by doing a more careful comparison of the
candidates, it might take a month. ;-) I suggest simply asking your
collaborators to report the results of "git --version; hg --version;
bzr --version", and go with the one that seems most widely installed
already. Caveat: if you have collaborators who use Windows, then you
may get better results by using hg or bzr.
It could be more expensive if you have a lot of history that you'd
like to move to the new VCS. Write me offlist if that is the case. I
can help with that.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta