william, the apache project is, i assume, suffering from the effects of many developers using cvs at the same time?
if so, can i recommend reading the description of how to ease the pain of #3 below, described in http://advogato.org/article/247.html it outlines how to use cvs to do one or more simultaneous cvs branches on sub-sections of a codebase. i.e. how to use a cvs tag for a small sub-section of the codebase and to use _another_ cvs tag for the rest. simple example: one developer wishes to try out a new memory manager replacement for apr_pool.c, where this may have a massive impact if carried out in cvs main, plus if they tag the entire cvs repository to do it, _they_ get out-of-date. so they tag _only_ the files that are modified by their experiment, and pull in all the rest from cvs main. the same procedure can be applied simultaneously by many developers, each doing their Own Thing. and the idea is that you can _always_ do a tarball / release at any time, because the developers are expected to do a cvs update -j 'mydevelopmenttag' / code-merge once they have proved that their work is stable, and not before - without a really good reason. am also giving serious consideration to writing a script to be run on cvs commits that uses keynote - requiring that cvs commits be digitally "signed off" by at least two developers / reviewers. but that's another story :) luke On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > It's been too long, time for a good tarball! I increasingly believe that a > pure > implementation of Roy's model can't work. Either 1) code freezes, 2) > dev/release branches, > or 3) parallel trees [I hate #3] seem required to allow development to > progress while folks > shoot down bugs. > > Bill > > > ----- Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- "i want a world of dreams, run by near-sighted visionaries" "good. that's them sorted out. now, on _this_ world..."
