CVS

[Ben Pfaff]

Edward Glowacki <glowack2@msu.edu> writes:

[...safety issues...]

> With CVS, isn't it pretty standard to do a cvs update then a cvs
> commit?  That syncs both directions and makes sense.  With the rest
> of it, perhaps it makes sense to have no default direction and make
> the user explicitely declare which direction the operation will
> go.

Yeah, CVS is pretty safe that way.  But you still run into
situations where it can't do the merge automatically and you have
to go into the resulting files and fix it.  (But it'll warn you
about it and keep backups of the unmerged version.)
-- 
"Debian for hackers, Red Hat for suits, Slackware for loons."
--CmdrTaco <URL:http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/22/0928207.shtml>