RE: checking links into source control
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 6:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: checking links into source control [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) writes: Not combining unrelated responsibilities into the same program is not necessarily a limitation. What would you say about an e-mail application that contains a C compiler, and a filesystem repair tool? Microsoft Outlook owns that market. But how about an e-mail application that contains an editor, Lisp interpreter, and text adventure game? ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: checking links into source control
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) writes: Not combining unrelated responsibilities into the same program is not necessarily a limitation. What would you say about an e-mail application that contains a C compiler, and a filesystem repair tool? Microsoft Outlook owns that market. -- Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.- Richard Feynman ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: checking links into source control
In article 9nsp7c$ocm$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Jackson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) writes: Not combining unrelated responsibilities into the same program is not necessarily a limitation. What would you say about an e-mail application that contains a C compiler, and a filesystem repair tool? Microsoft Outlook owns that market. Not out of the box; you have to hover your cursor over some attachment which implements these features for you. :) ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: checking links into source control
way. So far no one has disagreed. So is everyone in agreement with this basic goal? All of that can be managed by the build system. You don't need it in cvs. well, technically you don't *need* cvs either. you could do fine with rcs. In fact, programmers would probably live longer and get a better suntan if they gave up computers altogether and moved to Maui. Its a question of convenience. And its my business on how I manage my projects - I shouldn't be told what needs to be part of the build process because of limitations in a tool. After all, if cvs DID handle those types of file objects, there would have to arbitrary choices on how to support/emulate those objects on other systems. And those choices WOULD get in your way, because you wouldn't agree with them. Not necessarily. Most projects I have seen that have multiple OS support directories anyways, so it would never become an issue. And this glosses over the 95% or so of projects that never port from one OS to another and which could gain considerable benefit. By putting them into the build system, you can make the choice on how those features are emulated, and cvs can focus on doing what it was designed to do: manage file versions. That's your choice then. If links, special character files, directories, what have you are added to CVS and make you uncomfortable, then you don't need to use them. But don't deny the people who would get benefit from the version controlling of other things besides files. Personally, I'd like to be able to say: cvs update -r 1.2 -u (or some such flag) dir_name and have it get rid of all the files that were checked out post-1.2. Or say: cvs update -r 1.2 -U dir_name and have it rid of anything *but* the files that were in the 1.2 revision. Ed ( ps - anyways, I think I have a solution for the 'emulate similar features on other oses' issue. One that I think would make quite usable.. don't have time to type it up now, will do it a little later on. ) ( pps - what's the procedure for submitting getting patches applied around here? Who maintains/applies the patches for people who don't have write access to the CVS tree? ) - End forwarded message - ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: checking links into source control
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Edward Peschko wrote: way. So far no one has disagreed. So is everyone in agreement with this basic goal? All of that can be managed by the build system. You don't need it in cvs. [...] I shouldn't be told what needs to be part of the build process because of limitations in a tool. Not combining unrelated responsibilities into the same program is not necessarily a limitation. What would you say about an e-mail application that contains a C compiler, and a filesystem repair tool? ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: checking links into source control
In article SUdo7.8142$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kaz Kylheku wrote: I shouldn't be told what needs to be part of the build process because of limitations in a tool. Not combining unrelated responsibilities into the same program is not necessarily a limitation. What would you say about an e-mail application that contains a C compiler, and a filesystem repair tool? Doh, I forgot about Emacs. I sure set myself up for that one! ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: checking links into source control
[ On Thursday, September 13, 2001 at 18:50:52 (-0700), Edward Peschko wrote: ] Subject: Re: checking links into source control well, technically you don't *need* cvs either. you could do fine with rcs. In fact, programmers would probably live longer and get a better suntan if they gave up computers altogether and moved to Maui. Its a question of convenience. And its my business on how I manage my projects - I shouldn't be told what needs to be part of the build process because of limitations in a tool. I think you really need to very carefully consider the most excellent postings by Kaz Kylheku in the thread with the subject header Re: CVS management of /etc - permissions problem. That discussion directly applies to your question, and the answers are exactly the same for you as they are for Luke. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: checking links into source control
Kaz Kylheku wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Edward Peschko wrote: way. So far no one has disagreed. So is everyone in agreement with this basic goal? All of that can be managed by the build system. You don't need it in cvs. [...] I shouldn't be told what needs to be part of the build process because of limitations in a tool. Not combining unrelated responsibilities into the same program is not necessarily a limitation. What would you say about an e-mail application that contains a C compiler, and a filesystem repair tool? I'd say emacs . ;-) dtayl ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
