MKlinke wrote: > In a simple single-authored project where she is trying to maintain a > much more fine grained control over her revisions that what the > "official" repository allows I'm not sure why she would even want to > "sync" the repositories? It seems a simple comment in her personal > repository to the effect that "At this point in development the code > was released to the official repository" should suffice. > > (By "snycing" I'm assuming you mean "make them identical in all > respects including cvs assigned revision levels" at some point in > time ) > > Given the assumption above, why do you feel "syncing" is important > here? Well, without any further input from Jill, we're both making assumptions here. My assumption was that when she said:
> I'll be the only programmer on this > project; moreover, my contribution will probably be pretty > self-contained (i.e. I don't expect that anyone but me will be > modifying the code that I write for this.)" I assumed she meant she would be the only programmer *at her company* working on the project, but there could be other people from the open-source project, who might make changes. If Jill is the only person working on the code in any capacity, then a CVS repository is overkill. The local, fine-grained control might be more easily achieved by making a tarball (or Windows equivalent) when appropriate. But if she's not, then the whole issue becomes more complex - she will have to manage both her changes, and make sure to integrate the changes from the main repository. This is what I meant by keeping the two in sync. -- Jim Hyslop Senior Software Designer Leitch Technology International Inc. (http://www.leitch.com) Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com/experts) _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs