Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Arthur, > As Tony Eva pointed our - the thread discussing the technical stuff is available here: > http://www.cvsnt.org/pipermail/cvsnt/2006-June/025200.html Yes, I've waded through most of that thread and couldn't find the answer to the question: Which was the last version of CVSNT that supported this feature? It was taken out somewhere between 2.0.58d and 18.104.22.168. Nobody seems to be able to tell be when it was taken out. Thank you for your recommendation on our processes. Unfortunately, trying to change a process around here is a long and drawn out process in itself, and not one I wish to start just yet. I would amend the source code myself, however I lack the capability of building it. I downloaded it a few years ago when we first started using CVSNT, but found I didn't have the correct tools to build it. I don't know if this has changed recently? Having gone through the afore-mentioned thread, I must say that I came out of it largely agreeing with Tony Eva, not Tony Hoyle. Tony H at one point makes the assertion: > From cvs' point of view they are equivalent.. an alternative way of > viewing a mergepoint is a point of equivalence in the tree - it's a > point that you don't have to worry about earlier revisions so can > simplify the merge. > > Trust me - I invented the things :) I think this lies at the crux of the matter. If I may disagree with Tony on this point, this may be the way that mergepoints are intended, but this is not always the case. If this were true then we would not be having this conversation. If the mergepoint was always a point of equivalence, then you should be able to merge in any direction. The problem occurs because sometimes a particular mergepoint is not infact a point of equivalence, and so if you treat it as such you will get an incorrect merge, probably resulting in lost data. It would seem that, being presented with this problem, the CVS team have removed what is (in my view) a valuable feature. If I may be so bold as to suggest an alternative approach could have been to leave in the merging feature but to address the mergepoint problem instead. That is, only creating the mergepoint when there is a real point of equivalence. If this is an avenue that the CVS team would consider exploring then I am more than happy to get involved. However, as I mentioned above, I lack the tools to be able to do this on my own. At this point I would like to say that I have no desire to kick of the massive thread again that happened last year, sorry for bringing the subject up again. The one question I really want an answer to is my original question: Which was the last version of CVSNT that supported this feature? Rgds, Andy -- Andy Harrison - Platform Software Engineer Anite Telecoms Ltd. Ancells Business Park, Fleet, Hampshire, GU51 2UZ, UK "No matter how bad things seem... ...nothing could be worse than being used as a towel rail." - A.A. Milne A member of the Anite Group of companies. Please refer to www.anite.com for individual Anite company details. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. It may contain information which is confidential and/or covered by legal professional or other privilege. Contracts cannot be concluded with us nor legal service effected by email. Anite Group plc Registered in England No.1798114 Registered Office: 353 Buckingham Avenue Slough Berks SL1 4PF United Kingdom VAT Registration No. GB 787 418187 Scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl.