| 1 |
On 03/04/10 23:11, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> Random sidenote, anyone looked at using an alternate vcs to do the |
| 3 |
> work, then proxy it back? Specifically thinking of workflow like svk |
| 4 |
> (or in this case hg cvs, |
| 5 |
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Using_Mercurial_locally_with_CVS ). The |
| 6 |
> reason I ask is that via building the work up outside of cvs, then |
| 7 |
> proxying the add/remove/modifications back into it, it should be |
| 8 |
> possible to minimize the window of cvs breakage down to bare minimum |
| 9 |
> while still getting the same level of QA validation for the changes. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Assuming the person using such a tool |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
- is fluent in using such tool |
| 14 |
(to at least compensate extra abstraction. with plain CVS you |
| 15 |
at least know for sure what's happening) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- is manually doing extra commits for manifest fixes |
| 18 |
(like "repoman commit" would do for him otherwise) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Sebastian |
Archives