Hey gang, I recently had a heck of a time working with Savannah's CVS to get it to allow me to revert a version of a file to a previous one. Here's how I eventually got it to work: $ cvs update -j 1.3.2.14 -j 1.3.2.15 search.pl $ mv search.pl search.pl.new $ cvs update -A search.pl $ mv search.pl.new search.pl $ cvs commit -m "reverting to previous version" search.pl Ahem ... we need a new revisioning system :-) Cheers, -- Joshua Ferraro SUPPORT FOR OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE President, Technology migration, training, maintenance, support LibLime Featuring Koha Open-Source ILS jmf@liblime.com |Full Demos at http://liblime.com/koha |1(888)KohaILS
"Joshua M. Ferraro" <jmf@liblime.com> wrote:
I recently had a heck of a time working with Savannah's CVS to get it to allow me to revert a version of a file to a previous one. Here's how I eventually got it to work:
$ cvs update -j 1.3.2.14 -j 1.3.2.15 search.pl [...]
I think those -j flags are backwards for a revert. The manual says: -jREVISION With two -j options, merge changes from the revision specified with the first -j option to the revision specified with the second -j option, into the working directory. In the example above, 1.3.2.15 already contains all changes from 1.3.2.14, so that's a no-op. If, instead, one does cvs update -j 1.3.2.15 -j 1.3.2.14 search.pl cvs commit -m 'revert' search.pl then the changes are in 1.3.2.15 are reverted and 1.3.2.14 recommitted. [...]
Ahem ... we need a new revisioning system :-)
Yes (git!), but not for this reason. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, trainer, koha dev, online shop maker, GNU/Linux, debian, gobo, gnustep, mailing lists. Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
ok, i just have to ask... :) why git over svn? fyi: i dont have any git knowledge/experience, except that chris said its very differenct from cvs
Ahem ... we need a new revisioning system :-)
Yes (git!), but not for this reason.
-- Mason James Katipo Communications www.katipo.co.nz +64 4 934 1285
Mason James a écrit :
ok, i just have to ask... :)
why git over svn?
I think that svn is not very good in merging several branches together several times (even if it is better that CVS). svk can do that for one user, but not really for several. A distributed SCM will be able to allow fork and merge of several branches (2.2, 3.0, test, test2, ...) taking care automatically of new things and things already imported from/into this branch. However, as koha is a multi-plateform application, I would suggest to use mercurial[1] instead of git. It is written in python and can be installed on linux, *BSD, Solaris, Windows, ...
fyi: i dont have any git knowledge/experience, except that chris said its very differenct from cvs
Git and mercurial are very similar. But it's right they are different from centralized SCM (as CVS and SVN). To those that are interested, I would recommend to read : http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/UnderstandingMercurial and http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/Tutorial (the tutorial is available in english, french, spanish, chinese and japanese)
Ahem ... we need a new revisioning system :-)
Yes (git!), but not for this reason.
Vincent Danjean a écrit :
Mason James a écrit :
ok, i just have to ask... :)
why git over svn?
I think that svn is not very good in merging several branches together several times (even if it is better that CVS). svk can do that for one user, but not really for several.
A distributed SCM will be able to allow fork and merge of several branches (2.2, 3.0, test, test2, ...) taking care automatically of new things and things already imported from/into this branch. However, as koha is a multi-plateform application, I would suggest to use mercurial[1] instead of git. It is written in python and can be installed on linux, *BSD, Solaris, Windows, ...
fyi: i dont have any git knowledge/experience, except that chris said its very differenct from cvs
Git and mercurial are very similar. But it's right they are different from centralized SCM (as CVS and SVN). To those that are interested, I would recommend to read : http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/UnderstandingMercurial and http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/Tutorial (the tutorial is available in english, french, spanish, chinese and japanese)
Ahem ... we need a new revisioning system :-)
Yes (git!), but not for this reason.
I don't have any experience in that. But bazaar, monotone, Darcs are other distributed SCM. Is there anyone around that experienced those softwares ? -- Henri-Damien LAURENT
Henri-Damien LAURENT wrote:
Vincent Danjean a écrit :
Mason James a écrit :
ok, i just have to ask... :)
why git over svn?
I think that svn is not very good in merging several branches together several times (even if it is better that CVS). svk can do that for one user, but not really for several.
A distributed SCM will be able to allow fork and merge of several branches (2.2, 3.0, test, test2, ...) taking care automatically of new things and things already imported from/into this branch. However, as koha is a multi-plateform application, I would suggest to use mercurial[1] instead of git. It is written in python and can be installed on linux, *BSD, Solaris, Windows, ...
fyi: i dont have any git knowledge/experience, except that chris said its very differenct from cvs
Git and mercurial are very similar. But it's right they are different from centralized SCM (as CVS and SVN). To those that are interested, I would recommend to read : http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/UnderstandingMercurial and http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/Tutorial (the tutorial is available in english, french, spanish, chinese and japanese)
Ahem ... we need a new revisioning system :-)
Yes (git!), but not for this reason.
I don't have any experience in that. But bazaar, monotone, Darcs are other distributed SCM. Is there anyone around that experienced those softwares ?
In the November 2004 to May 2005 timeframe (i.e. 2 years ago) I helped Wolfgang Denks <http://www.denx.de> evaluate git, Arch, Monotone, and Darcs as alternatives to the (Sourceforge provided) u-boot CVS repository. An absolute requirement was true support of distributed repositories and secondary requirements were scaling, speed, stability, and support. The requirement for true distributed repositories ruled out SVN (and others). We ultimately chose git for u-boot development for several reasons which may or may not apply to Koha: * Scaling, speed, and stability could not be touched by the others. * Support and user base: linux development has changed git from rough stoneware to shiny porcelain very quickly. * Support for remote repositories and merging is tremendously good. * U-boot development is closely related to linux development, so it made a _lot_ of sense to use the same SCM. All the SCMs were capable of getting the job done, some better than others. Speed and scaling were the biggest issues with Arch, Monotone, and Darcs. Here is an intersting link: <http://changelog.complete.org/posts/528-Whose-Distributed-VCS-Is-The-Most-Distributed.html> This was as of two years ago, the other SCMs are likely much better now (and git is much better now too). Best regards, gvb
participants (6)
-
Henri-Damien LAURENT -
Jerry Van Baren -
Joshua M. Ferraro -
Mason James -
MJ Ray -
Vincent Danjean