Quoting David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 29 Nov 2000, at 9:48, Donovan Baarda wrote:
>
> > IMHO, everything should be put into CVS, including webpages and
> > documentation. CVS gives you a revision history and backup
> > archive. This is indespensible for any data that you want to keep
> > and/or modify (nearly all data :-).
>
> I would agree with the concept but not the idea implicit in the
> statement. Packages should be separate from the base, except perhaps
> for a few packages designated for the base disk. In the case of
> Oxygen, the latter include: ifconfig/route (et al), libsafe, iselect,
> psentry, and a few more.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying... seperating things in CVS
is as simple as putting them in seperate directories.
Did you think I meant checking in whole packages? I guess I should clarify; you
want (need) a revision history and backups of "design content"... ie anything
you had to create yourself and don't want to have to do again. Once you have
this, you don't need to revision control the "generated content", which can be
re-generated from the "design content" at any time with minimal effort. This
means you CVS your source, not the compiled binaries.
To me, packages are "generated content" and shouldn't go into CVS. If the final
stage of creating your packages is requiring quite a bit of "design content"
(like fiddling around with files at a command prompt), then I'd still avoid
checking in the whole package (which is still predominantly "generated
content") and instead turn that bit of "design content" into a shell script or
makefile and check that in.
> > I would checkin each different variant as different branches, and
> > then slowly work towards merging them all in the future.
>
> My personal bias (as Oxygen developer) would be to continue Oxygen
> development while at the same time providing as much assistance to
> LEAF development as I could. I can see developing code and using it
> in both places. Doing this, I could help LEAF be the best possible
> while letting Oxygen reflect my personal ideas.
There is nothing wrong with mantaining seperate branches indefinitely where
there is a need or desire to. Seperate branches do tend to require more overall
work (ie different people contributing to different branches and merging from
other branches), but this is nothing that can't be overcome by enough
enthusiasm :-)
Idealy you would have a common trunk, and have the different branches running
in parallel and mantaining sync with the trunk. Good stuff from any branch
could be merged back into the trunk, then these changes could then be merged
into the other branches. This way the various tailored branches are deltas from
a common trunk that is evolving as the branches evolve. The trick is to
regularly merge branches with with the trunk and vise-versa.
> Is this heresy? To date, I've tried to maintain at least some
> compatability with EigerStein and other variants.
[...]
This would be bucket loads easier if they were all in a common CVS system. You
could pull up diffs between Oxygen and others, and merge in changes from/to
them as you wished.
--
ABO: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more information.
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/leaf-devel
