[cvsnt] Re: Does atomic commit work in 2.0 stable?

[Tony Hoyle]

Ori Berger wrote:

 Tony, Can you elaborate a little on how this works? Searching
> through the Wiki I found two short mentions, one in the CvsClient
> page, and one in the history page, neither which is really informative.

See the thread at:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=cf333042.0301231424.53e67cbd%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dcvs%2Batomic%2Bcommits%2Bhard%2Blinks%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dcf333042.0301231424.53e67cbd%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1

Derek Price originally brought it to my attention, and I stuck an
implementation in, which seems to work.

> And is there any reason why it shouldn't work on a Unix/Linux
> system? (hard links have recently been added to it <wink> )

Yes, it works fine under Unix.

TBH Atomic Commits are solving a problem that really isn't one.  CVS is
already atomic at the file level, so there's no risk of corruption from
power failure (the worst you'll probably get is a few lock files hanging
around).  Commit-level atomicity sounds cool but really doesn't buy you
anything.  I implemented it because some people seem to want it, but have
never actually used it myself beyond the testing stage.

Tony