>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 13:09:09 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ] >> Subject: RE: CVS corrupts binary files ... >> >> I've done revision control by backup, and I've done revision control >> by naming convention. Both have proven to be disasters.
>Obviously you tried to use these tehniques in isolation. >> Introducing uncontrolled sources into your process is not the answer. >Obviously you missed (or conveniently ignored) the step where the build >system's configuration source file(s) are checked into the CVS repository >and thus becomes a very much _controlled_ part of the SCM process. Nope, I got it. The thing is, you can control pointers (e.g. makefiles containing references to files stored in a library somewhere) all you want, but that buys you nothing unless the targets of the pointers are also tightly controlled. Just grabbing stuff and throwing it in a directory, maybe giving it a unique name, simply isn't enough. You still need to prevent uncontrolled changes from being introduced, reproducing it if something fails, repeating the configuration when upgrading, and all the other stuff that a full CM system does. That means the stuff that you can't create from other sources must be kept under some form of source control, and you need a build procedure to make it useful, among other things. >--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
