On Monday 11 October 2004 19:33, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> In practice Copy-Modify-Merge works more often than not. However, that is
> more because of good luck than because the system would be well designed.
> The bugs that arise when this luck runs out can be very hard to find.
> Optimally we would have file-type specific plugins that know what would
> constitute a conflict. Thus they would know what to lock (if using LMU), or
> what parts of which merges need review and/or conflict solving (if using
> CMM). Until then both LMU and CMM are broken.
Just consider this: if CMM fails regularly for you, your workflow is broken.
> Meanwhile, I'd say that LMU is way, way safer when you have a large team
> and a large project. In very small teams and/or small projects it might not
> be much difference which one they use if all team members know all the code
> by heart and review all commits.
The mathematically/theoretically safest way of doing things often turns into
the practically worst case.
In a well organized project each person has specific responsibilities and will
work 95% if his/her time on these specifics. This is the area, where CMM
works waayyy better than LMU, because people don't lock each other out of
If your people don't talk to each other before touching the remaining 5%, or
don't know which 5% are those 5%, or step on each others toes for any other
reason, then they all need to go back to kindergarten and learn how to talk
to each other!
But, ....well, we are talking about commercial development here - don't we? I
waste my virtual breath...
On the other side of the spectrum: large projects like KDE(*) work with CMM
(*)2003 it was 750 registered CVS accounts, KDE 3.3 is 625 MB of sources
Received on Tue Oct 12 19:55:51 2004
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored