Hi,
Having used the optional Pvcs task to perform a large GET from our PVCS repository on Unix, and found it a lot faster than using the Windows GUI (unsurprisingly), I'm interested in extending the tasks to include versioning (currently very slow for us using the GUI, and a bit error prone), and possibly using promotion groups.
Not having developed for Ant before, and not being that familiar with the coding conventions used I could use some advice in how to proceed.
In all these cases we're dealing with the bulk of our repository (the parts that are part of the application, not requirement docs etc.), and so the mechanism used currently for the GET where a list of files is generated using the PVCS pcli command and then processed using "<command> @tmpfile" is appropriate. We're not really interested in using it to checkout/in individual files because we've got the GUI. However, I appreciate that others may want to add tasks for these things.
I had a few thoughts on how to structure this:
1) Extend the existing Pvcs task to have a "command" argument, which could be "Get", "Version", "Promote" etc. This would make it a bit like the CVS task, but has the problem that some arguments would not make sense for a particular command. It also might get a bit messy!
2) Create PvcsGet, PvcsVersion, PvcsPromote tasks and deprecate Pvcs task. Split out the common functionality which is mostly in getting the list of files from the repository using the plci command (Pcli.java?), and then just have the appropriate arguments for each task (although a lot of these would be common).
3) Keep the Pvcs task with the common arguments and have nested elements for the different commands. This would probably be more difficult to write :), and in reality it would be a bit like 2) with the Pvcs task doing the list of files and the command elements (with a PvcsCommand interface or something) doing the get/version/promote. I'm concerned that the structure of the tags would be reflecting the underlying PVCS commands, and also that this might not support tasks for individual files very well.
Personally I favour 2).
I would also like to incorporate any fixes/improvements suggested to what's already there, and add more arguments to support more of the command line options (like quiet output).
Thanks in advance,
Andrew
