Michael,
I think the thing is the attitude the company takes, it has been my
experience that large corporations with System Administrators and a
department that looks after the systems for users, usually exempt the
Software Developers from there normal stringent rules.
Now on that same token it
Man oh man, seems like I've managed to dive headfirst into a bit of a hornets'
nest here :)
I think many valid and interesting points have been raised in this thread.
While I will say, that I am still not a believer, I am certainly going to
have a bit of a rethink about my position on some of
Michael,
Hope you read this before bowing out...
I think, you need to understand one thing, nobody is saying that a
developer needs to be able to maintain a server, that is the Administrators
job. And there is a huge distinction between being able to install software
for development, and
While I have only very limited CF experience in working with a
setup where everyone develops locally, I have done quite a bit
of this in C#.
Something else before you bow out of the conversation - Microsoft spoils
its developers with Visual Studio. In the VS environment you have a
built-in
Just to add some thoughts to this. It really doesn't take much to have
a working development setup that can be thrown into a zip and then
scripted out for installation. Especially if you're using
Apache/MySQL. I've got a zip that I hand out to folks that I
collaborate with that contains
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Michael Christensen mich...@strib.dkwrote:
(I don't know if this is a particular Danish or European way to do things
- seems that things might be a bit different in the US)
...or just the specific companies you've worked for in the past, regardless
of
This can be done with ACF as well, as you don't really need an install
there, just getting the services in place works fine. Even if you want
to run the install, it's not all the time consuming. Heck, isn't there
an unofficial means of running a silent install for it?
You don't even need
Damn fine point, Cameron.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Cameron Childress camer...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Michael Christensen mich...@strib.dk
wrote:
(I don't know if this is a particular Danish or European way to do things
- seems that things might be a bit
Where is that +infinity button, again? :-)
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Raymond Camden raymondcam...@gmail.comwrote:
Damn fine point, Cameron.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Cameron Childress camer...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Michael Christensen
Good tips about developers being able to run software under other licensing
rules - I did not think that one through fully I can see now.
I personally disagree, respectfully of course, with the people who say, that
developers should be able to maintain CF and web server, as well as set up 3rd
Michael,
Most developers should know how to install ColdFusion, it is dead simple to
begin with, maintaining it well that is another story.
But what interests me is this statement
*The plans were eventually dropped, as it was deemed too expensive (in
terms of lost productivity) and adding an
Michael, I've noticed you, and others, have mentioned server maintenance.
To be clear, I think there is a -far- difference between someone who is an
expert in Apache and IIS tuning and someone double clicking to install
Apache. I don't think developers should be fine tuning Apache, or DB
servers.
@Andrew
Most developers should know how to install ColdFusion, it is dead simple to
begin with, maintaining it well that is another story.
If your premise is that we are talking about developers who are running a setup
where each person has a local CF server on his/her machine, then I would
Michael, I've noticed you, and others, have mentioned server maintenance.
To be clear, I think there is a -far- difference between someone who is an
expert in Apache and IIS tuning and someone double clicking to install
Apache. I don't think developers should be fine tuning Apache, or DB
servers.
Hard evidence, I will give you the worst case scenario.
Joe has opened a file and begun working on a file, in your current setup
that means the file will be locked from other developers, now he has gone
to lunch and within 5 minutes another developer needs to make changes to
that file. While one
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Michael Christensen mich...@strib.dkwrote:
I personally disagree, respectfully of course, with the people who say,
that developers should be able to maintain CF and web server, as well as
set up 3rd party components etc. To me, that is like saying that any
One of the primary reasons a developer should have a clue what happens on
the server is so they can actually debug and diagnose problems instead of
saying to their client/boss it must be the hosts fault, lets get a new
host, which is hardly ever the cause of the problem.
I have seen plenty of
@Russ
I can certainly tell, that we have very different views as to which constitutes
a quote-unquote developer.
In keeping with the automotive analogies, I feel that what Raymond is
essentially saying, is that he would not hire you to drive a car, unless you
were a mechanic.
I feel
No what Ray is saying is that a developer should be able to turn the car on
and drive it, but to maintain the car you need professional help with it.
Michael I think you need to stop for a minute, a developer should know
there way around the Administrator, they should also know how to add sites
I admit, there may be every chance that the reason why I don't agree with you
is that A) I am not used to an environment in which developers develop locally
or (perhaps more frighteningly) B) I am just not very bright.
I am always willing to learn and expand my horizon though, so could you
setting up and managing servers is quite different to having a clue about
how your app works and some basic web server knowledge. A developer
certainly does not need to know the former, but he should at least have a
clue about his own development environment and be able to set it up as
close as
If I may, I think there are some core concept differences between Michaels
scenario and the others. What I am seeing in your questions and responses
points to a corporate structure where development is not a part of IT.
Correct me if I'm wrong there.
In many cases the structure is different,
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Michael Christensen wrote:
I admit, there may be every chance that the reason why I don't agree with
you is that A) I am not used to an environment in which developers develop
locally
I'd say that's a really good reason for you to have previously not agreed
PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Source control in CF
@Russ
I can certainly tell, that we have very different views as to which
constitutes a quote-unquote developer.
In keeping with the automotive analogies, I feel that what Raymond is
essentially saying, is that he would not hire you to drive a car
I personally disagree, respectfully of course, with the people who say, that
developers should be able to maintain
CF and web server, as well as set up 3rd party components etc. To me, that is
like saying that any developer
should be able to set up a database server, know how DNS functions
Would I expect my chauffeur to be able to diagnose a flat tire and change it?
Absolutely.
Would I expect him to be able to diagnose and fix a problem in the engine
management system? Absolutely not.
There's a potentially large range of items between those two. I think
you would find that
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Michael Christensen wrote:
For us at least, running on a shared codebase with 1 development server
and all code available via a webpath (usually mounted as a drive for
convenience) works quite well and has done so without major snafus for 10+
years.
To build on this idea, look at Vagrant. It allows your IT department (or
whoever's responsible) to maintain a script that loads a VM, necessary assets,
and code. I've written a Vagrant script for Railo:
https://github.com/bdcravens/railo-vagrant
Here's a Chef recipe Nathan Mische wrote for
, 2013 9:25 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Source control in CF
I agree with Raymond, any developer should be able to maintain their own CF
and other things. As for Helicon mod_rewrite there is a lite version that
allows developers to run with a few limitations, but as they clearly state
the lite version
And how's that exception log you accidentally deleted going, Eric?
(sorry ;-)
--
Adam
On 31 January 2013 17:56, Eric Roberts ow...@threeravensconsulting.comwrote:
I was going to echo what Raymond and Andrew said as well. Every place I
have worked at had given developers admin rights to
And how's that exception log you accidentally deleted going, Eric?
http://instantrimshot.com/
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber
Before you go too far down the SVN route, what you're kinda suggesting is
akin to saying we've finally decided to upgrade from Windows 3.1, so we're
upgrading to WindowsXP. SVN is great software, but it's not really where
it's at any more.
You really ought to be looking at Git: either your own
+1 for git.
Slightly larger learning curve, and but Google is your friend.
If github, etc is not possible and you need a repo server in house look at
gitlab and Gitorious as possible interface solutions on top of your git
installation.
We are in the process of replacement of a git + redmine
Michael,
First you need to switch to developers running ColdFusion on their
machines, there is no way in hell that you can be effective with any Source
Control with that scenario. Then you need to use something like Subversive
which I believe is the better one, although a lot of people on here
Disagree Adam...
SVN is still the best to use if the development team will never be
distributed across many locations, and even if it is but contained with the
same company securely, SVN is still the better way to go.
--
Regards,
Andrew Scott
WebSite: http://www.andyscott.id.au/
Google+:
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparison
Pretty good comparison. May be a little git bias, but I think it hits the
major points on the head.
My personal reason for switching to git were 2 fold. Our code base is
ridiculous and svn was getting extremely slow, especially things like
I don't know, I think that is a decent comparison, maybe a bit GIT biased
but I guess that maybe depends on who wrote it.
I am not sure I know the answer to this, but are there Jira hooks for GIT?
I find these extremely useful when using Jira as a ticketing system so you
can see all the changes
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Adam Cameron wrote:
Before you go too far down the SVN route...
To me, Git vs SVN is sort of like a Mac vs PC argument. Git is good, SVN is
good. They are both VERY VERY widely used and I expect both to be heavily
used for the foreseeable future.
Like most
I agree with Cameron on this one. We recently moved from SVN to Git because
we found that within our team it facilitated our workflow. We started
implementing the practices outlined by Git Flow and that's been working
really well. That doesn't mean that Git is better than SVN, it's just
better in
The downside is that in a team environment, you constantly need to merge
and test and merge and test and commit. So you should be connected to the
Source Control to do this, and where I have found GIT to be a pain in the
ass with when multiple changes to a file can impact you.
But I agree with
+infinity
I agree with Adam here completely. SVN is mejor que nada, but if you're in
an environment where anyone other than yourself is going to be committing,
Git annihilates SVN.
I would strongly encourage you to look at GitHub, as it makes things so
simple to get started. And, if you're on a
Testing should be done on your topic branch. Git makes this so ridiculously
simple that I'm not even sure how to respond to the (apparent) assertion
that it's difficult. Committing and merging is one of the areas where SVN
can't even begin to compare with Git in terms of simplicity - or power.
And I'll have to disagree with you, Andrew...
Having worked extensively in both Subversion and Git, I find Git to be a
much more robust tool, providing a lot more flexibility, and huge gains
in overall workflow. Anytime I have to move back towards Subversion it
is somewhat painful. All of
What Cutter said. :-)
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Steve 'Cutter' Blades
cold.fus...@cutterscrossing.com wrote:
And I'll have to disagree with you, Andrew...
Having worked extensively in both Subversion and Git, I find Git to be a
much more robust tool, providing a lot more
Steve,
Yeah it might be a lack of understanding, but I know the tools on Windows
are not for the faint hearted. I have had better success with SVN than I
have ever had with Git. I tried using smartGit which the programmers have a
very good version called smartSVN and the most basic of rolling
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Matt Quackenbush quackfu...@gmail.comwrote:
I'll just say that anyone that thinks Git is difficult in this area has
either a) never tried Git, or b) didn't read/understand the documentation
or have someone help them through it.
I think Git gives you a whole
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Andrew Scott wrote:
In Open Source and the like I would recommend Git or the
like, but expect a very huge learning curve.
The context of the OP is that of getting started with source control - any
source control. In that context, the learning curve exists
See now I find SVN far easier when you use it right, when merging code and
my opinion it is more ridiculously easier than Git. But again you need to
know how to use SVN to its fullest as well.
I have worked in teams who use SVN, and they didn't know how to maximise
its potential, and found
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Andrew Scott wrote:
Till then my view is not going
to change,
LOL. That's what we all love about you, my friend! :-)
in a team SVN is far better when you know how to use it right.
And there are countless teams who have used both - correctly - who
Matt,
Please read what I have said, I am not painting it as bad, I have clearly
stated that Git is better in decentralized environments. The OP seems to be
a small company that is all in house, Git is not designed to be good in
those conditions at least my experience across large/small
Whatever Matt, you took that right out of context.
--
Regards,
Andrew Scott
WebSite: http://www.andyscott.id.au/
Google+: http://plus.google.com/113032480415921517411
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Matt Quackenbush quackfu...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Andrew Scott
Out of context for this thread? This thread was a question about how to do
xyz with Subversion. Anything about using Git, the kewl kids are using Git,
Git is Defacto, etc etc etc, is out of context.
Every technology is a tool and each tool has it's uses. Just because some have
manage to
To the OP: I'm really sorry to have accidentally turned this thread into
one of those my toy is better than your toy kind of discussions. That's
probably not what you were wanting :-(
--
Adam
On 30 January 2013 09:42, Adam Cameron adamcameroncoldfus...@gmail.comwrote:
Before you go too far
My apologies. I came into the thread late, and had only seen bits about
getting started. I didn't realize that the OP was asking specific
questions about SVN.
I still agree with Adam, though, that one getting started with source
control should look at Git as well.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:19
: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:24 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Source control in CF
To the OP: I'm really sorry to have accidentally turned this thread into one
of those my toy is better than your toy kind of discussions. That's
probably not what you were wanting :-(
--
Adam
On 30 January 2013 09:42
Sorry Wil, yeah. I guess I should have anticipated the way it would have
gone after I mentioned I thought Git might be a better starting point.
I only addressed that and the shared dev server point because I wanted to
see if Git was an option before helping with the other - SVN-specific -
I think the interesting thing is that how can something be defacto when the
market share for that product is like 3% where SVN has a market share of
well over 50%.
So 5 million users against a few thousand must be wrong...
--
Regards,
Andrew Scott
WebSite: http://www.andyscott.id.au/
Google+:
.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Matt Quackenbush [mailto:quackfu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:02 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Source control in CF
+infinity
I agree with Adam here completely. SVN is mejor que nada, but if you're in
an environment where anyone other
: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:52 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Source control in CF
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Andrew Scott wrote:
In Open Source and the like I would recommend Git or the like, but
expect a very huge learning curve.
The context of the OP is that of getting started
I agree Andrew...
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Scott [mailto:andr...@andyscott.id.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:57 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Source control in CF
See now I find SVN far easier when you use it right, when merging code and
my opinion it is more
I can only speak from personal experience, but I found the move from nothing
to Mercurial (which has a similar model to Git) much easier than my
previous, aborted, attempt to get going with SVN. Since then, I've had
experience with both, but not Git, and I can honestly say that big merges
are
First of, let me thank all of you for your (quite lively) inputs.
The discussion did spiral a bit out of control in a GIT vs SVN tussle, but I
understand and can respect that people have strong opinions as to which systems
they prefer.
I also wholeheartedly agree, that there are certain
of course we could liven it up even more and suggest mercurial :-)
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Michael Christensen mich...@strib.dkwrote:
First of, let me thank all of you for your (quite lively) inputs.
The discussion did spiral a bit out of control in a GIT vs SVN tussle, but
I
Someone already did. :-)
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Russ Michaels r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
of course we could liven it up even more and suggest mercurial :-)
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Michael Christensen mich...@strib.dk
wrote:
First of, let me thank all of you for
While it is true, that the CF Developer licensing does allow for each
developer to run a CF server locally without paying a license fee, the time
spent by the IT department setting up and supporting 50+ websites (plus our
backend/admin software) on each developer machine does come at a cost.
I'll guess this is more a situation with IT restricting software installs
to workstations.
Heck we've even had problems with advanced users (who have been granted
administration rights to their workstations) abusing the privilege by
running torrents and other inappropriate software.
Government
I agree with Raymond, any developer should be able to maintain their own CF
and other things. As for Helicon mod_rewrite there is a lite version that
allows developers to run with a few limitations, but as they clearly state
the lite version is great for developers who are developing with a few
Why not just have a local VMware image for developer unit testing?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 31, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Michael Christensen mich...@strib.dk wrote:
First of, let me thank all of you for your (quite lively) inputs.
The discussion did spiral a bit out of control in a GIT vs SVN
I have a few blog posts on setting up a Subversion server with a few web based
tools. And a good post on the Subversive plugin for CFBuilder.
http://www.trunkful.com/index.cfm/SVNVersion-Control
You are correct in that you need a server for the team to access.
P1: You need to use an SVN
you also wont really be able to have them all working on the same codebase,
this is potential for lots of problems and really defeats the point of
using SVN as your devs will be able to overwrite each others changes. Each
dev would have to log into the server to commit to the repository, which is
70 matches
Mail list logo
