Re: cvs update vs. git pull

From: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@dewire.com>
Date: May 28, 2010, 15:58 UTC
Message-ID: <201005281758.24183.robin.rosenberg@dewire.com>
In-Reply-To: <d876ae6b75ab8d9debe5b97f84a4386a.squirrel@resmo.ch>

fredagen den 28 maj 2010 11.21.12 skrev  René Moser:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Hi
> 
> I use git since a while for my own projects (how surprise).
> 
> The company I work for still uses a CVS(nt), and this sucks, time to
> changed that. We have a use case we often have problems with. If git would
> solve this problem, I would really have a good arg for the managers.
> 
> The codebase managed by CVS is quite huge and therefore we have daily and
> nightly builds.
> 
> One problem we have is, that if there is a commit to cvs while the cvs
> update of the build job is running (and this takes 20 minutes), then we
> get some inconsistence, the build will fail.

Perform export/checkout using a timestamp to avoid this. You should also require that no checkins to your branch have happend during a period, say 10 minutes, before starting the build.

> So the question is, if we would use git, this inconsistence would not be
> possible because the git pull will get the state of the sha1. Right?

Yes. It's hard to predict what happens when you have multiple repos involved, in the build. Requiring no changes (on the build branch) in all repos is one option.

-- robin