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 com

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 files

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

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

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 sunta

Re: checking links into source control

In article , 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-mai

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

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 l