[ On , February 27, 2002 at 14:00:24 (-0600), Mark A. Flacy wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: OT: well bred language [was RE: refactoring when using CVS]
>
> Ruby? With the Perlish syntactic trash like...
>
> "It uses simple naming conventions to denote the scope of
>vari
Ruby? With the Perlish syntactic trash like...
"It uses simple naming conventions to denote the scope of
variables. Examples: simple 'var' = local variable, '@var' = instance
variable, '$var' = global variable. So it is also not necessary to use a
tiresome 'self.' prepended to every i
[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 09:14:29 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> 1. You sound like a manager rather than a developer.
Oh, that's scary. Though I have in effect managed some development
projects, I'm very much not trained i
[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 07:04:21 (-0800), EXT-Corcoran, David wrote: ]
> Subject: OT: well bred language [was RE: refactoring when using CVS]
>
> Out of curiosity, what is your favorite language? What language would you
> consider well-bred?
Well, first off I guess I sho
[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 12:15:20 (-0600), Thornley, David wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> No they aren't.
>
> You cannot possibly have extremely well-informed opinions on
> languages you have never worked in. You can have interest
--- "Thornley, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you read Stroustrup's "Design and Evolution of
> C++"?
> If you have not done that, or worked with a standard
> implementation, you don't know beans about C++.
Or, better yet, _Modern C++ Design_ by Andrei
Alexandrescu and _Multi-Paradigm D
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 3:23 AM
> To: Mark A. Flacy
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
>
> [ On , February 26, 2002 at 01:57:19 (
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On , February 26, 2002 at 01:57:19 (-0600), Mark
> A. Flacy wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
> >
> > Of course, from your very own web page you
> state...
> >
> > H
scam.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 1:23 AM
> To: Mark A. Flacy
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
>
> [ On , February 26, 2002 at 01:57
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 20:53:56 (-0800),
> Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
> >
> > > How do you know they didn't "Fix XP when it
> broke
> > &g
[ On , February 26, 2002 at 01:57:19 (-0600), Mark A. Flacy wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> Of course, from your very own web page you state...
>
> However I have so far resisted any temptation to learn anything
> significant about any of the bast
Of course, from your very own web page you state...
However I have so far resisted any temptation to learn anything
significant about any of the bastardised half-breed languages such as
C++, Perl, etc., or even most of their ill-begotten offspring such as
Java, C#, etc.
...so it doesn't
[ On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 10:28:03 (-0800), Glew, Andy wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> Can we then conclude that "CVS is broken for
> Large-Scale C++ Software Design"?
I concluded quite some time ago that C++ was broken for large-sca
[ On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 20:53:56 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> > How do you know they didn't "Fix XP when it broke
> > for them"!?!?!?!?
>
> Which means they're no longer doing XP.
You clearly don
[ On Monday, February 25, 2002 at 10:28:03 (-0800), Glew, Andy wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> In XP, development *IS* maintenance.
In an ideal world, maybe. However if you can do XP over the real life
of something of any significant size, then you've eith
By the way, responding to those who say
"CVS is broken for XP".
Many people, myself included, think that
"Large-Scale C++ Software Design"
by Lakos is a good book.
Lakos highly advocates strict filenaming:
a class lives in a .cc/.hh file, and nowhere else.
And, similarly, that classes should be
> Hmmm... but in an eXtreme Pogramming environment you won't be checking
> things into CVS until they bloody well work now will you!
>
> If you're using XP methods for maintenance of existing code then you'd
> damn well better skip the refactoring step or you'll only
> cause yourself
> (and your
I've been practicing XP, to a greater or lesser degree,
for 4 years using C/C++ and CVS.
Yes, XP with CVS can be done.
Yes, CVS makes renaming files a pain. You inevitably corrupt
history, whether you cvs remove oldname / cvs add newname
(losing history) or whether you copy the ,v file in the ar
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It requires being able to rename files when you're
> > programming in Java.
>
> That's an IDE issue with Java programming, not a
> language issue.
If the package name doesn't match the directory
structure or if the class name doesn't match the
f
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 05:15:51
> (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > What??? Since when does "serial commits" mean
> "serial
> > development"? Can you please work with other
> people
> > within an XP project before making such comments?
[ On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 05:15:51 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> --- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think you've missed a point, again. XP implies
> > there is little,
[ On Saturday, February 23, 2002 at 06:25:13 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> > $ wc -l $(find . \( -name CVS -prune \) -o -type f -print)
> > ksh: wc: Argument list too long
>
> If you'd read anything I posted, yo
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 14:36:08 (-0800),
> Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
> >
> > The part about identification (as if I wasn't
> clear
> > enough befo
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 08:28:16 (-0800),
> Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
> >
> > Since bare-bones CVS pretty much forces you to tag
> (ie
> > branch) all f
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 08:09:28 (-0800),
> Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > I would argue that "All code must have unit tests"
> is
> > as practically unenforcible as "All commits must
> have
> > comments" since enforcing such rules using tools
> wo
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 14:36:08 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> The part about identification (as if I wasn't clear
> enough before). Identification must occur before the
> first release. Or do you somehow do the
> i
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 16:40:47 (-0600), Thornley, David wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> I don't quite understand this. I use CVS at home, where I don't
> share development, and have found it convenient to use in initial
> development.
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 14:20:43 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> And in this respect, capitalism is self-correcting.
only in very large, very long, and very damaging cycles, thus the
"correction" threat from Mother Ear
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 08:28:16 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> Since bare-bones CVS pretty much forces you to tag (ie
> branch) all files in the module, either it's a slug
> when it comes to large code bases, or you
: refactoring when using CVS
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm almost willing to bet that unless things turn
> about face quickly
> then soon the countries hiding today's "terrorists"
> are going to start
> looking pretty attractive
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 4:09 PM
> To: Noel Yap
> Cc: CVS-II Discussion Mailing List
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
>
> [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 07:12
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 17:01:44 -0500, Greg A. Woods sent 1.8K bytes:
> Yeah, and you 'Mericans might pressure us into something like that too.
> Hevean help us if the bloody Canadian Alliance party gets power in this
This has nothing to do with CVS nor with the subject "refact
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> then you are, sadly, disillusioned, and perhaps that
> explains why you
> don't always grasp how to make effective use of CVS.
That's right Greg, start making more false statements.
> > SCM by definition is the identification of what
> goes
> > i
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm almost willing to bet that unless things turn
> about face quickly
> then soon the countries hiding today's "terrorists"
> are going to start
> looking pretty attractive to freedom lovers (and
> fighters) everywhere!
And in this respect, capita
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 08:09:28 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> I would argue that "All code must have unit tests" is
> as practically unenforcible as "All commits must have
> comments" since enforcing such
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 07:12:39 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> --- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CVS is not and has never been very useful for
> > initial development under
> > any
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 06:46:05 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> --- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > err, rather, maybe, "organisations illegal in the
> > USA"
>
>
On Solaris, it's more than a megabyte.
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Does anyone know what the argv[] limit is for solaris 2.6? I have tested
>pserver with up to 50 --allow-root options being passed and seemed to work
>fine.
>--- Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's you
I won't comment on the mechanics of refactoring specifically, but I'll
try to answer your questions with regard to SCM artifacts. Refactoring
is another way of describing changes to the design of a project, which
is still largely an art form and it's an exercise for the developer to
determine whe
Does anyone know what the argv[] limit is for solaris 2.6? I have tested
pserver with up to 50 --allow-root options being passed and seemed to work
fine.
Mark
--- Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's your OS kernel that imposes the limitation, not the shell. The
> limitation is on how
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:27:15AM -0800, Mark wrote:
> Does anyone know what the argv[] limit is for solaris 2.6?
The value of NCARGS, in , I believe.
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
One ring to rule the mall.
- Movie review headline
--- Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Noel Yap
> wrote:
> >--- Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>find . -name '*.java' -print0 | xargs -0 javac
> >
> >Keep in mind that since xargs has a size limit, you
> >may wind up doing a little more recomp
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where it becomes bad is when it adversely impacts
> other members of a
> multi-person project. CVS provides ways to isolate
> such practices
> though so that they don't adversely impact the
> project (per developer
> branches).
Since bare-bones CV
--- Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - if someone is working on file A on branch 1 and
> someone else refactors file A
> on branch 2, what good is a merge, using CC or CVS?
> Wouldn't the person doing
> the merge have to collect/identify the changes on
> branch 1 and then figure out
> where they
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course Aegis is even better with XP than CVS
> because of the two-phase
> commit which helps with the "Only one pair
> integrates code at a time"
> rule; and also with the ability to enforce and run
> test modules for
> every commit (which obviou
--- Tom Plunket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then again, I'm not renaming files like crazy-
> there's no reason
> to as far as I can tell. The classes (C++
> development) don't
> need to change name, most of my "refactoring" work
> ends up
> splitting out functionality and creating new files.
>
--- Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's terrible! What if the resulting command line
> violates the
> systems's environment passing limit? Of course, you
> want:
>
> find . -name '*.java' -print | xargs javac
>
> hopefully, none of the names contain spaces and
> newlines, but
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CVS is not and has never been very useful for
> initial development under
> any methodology that doesn't involve sharing of the
> code under
> development (and sharing in a non-XP manner!).
I disagree.
> Sure
> there are pedants
> amongst the CVS
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 16:13:57
> (-0600), Thornley, David wrote: ]
> > Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
> >
> > So, just remember that it will often be futile to
> ask
> > for
--- Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Plunket wrote:
> >I haven't found myself renaming files much, quite honestly. How
> >does CVS deal with file deletions and additions? That's the way
> >I'd prefer to go over renaming anyway.
>
> Deleting and addin
[ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 17:26:12 (-0800), Tom Plunket wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> What, pray tell, does "sharing in an XP manner" mean if not
> "anyone can edit anything at any time"?
"Only one pair integrates c
[ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 16:57:53 (-0800), Tom Plunket wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> Huh? What part of "continuous integration" don't you understand?
>
> For those who are unclear on the concept, "integration" i
[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 00:25:15 (GMT), Kaz Kylheku wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> hopefully, none of the names contain spaces and newlines, but I wouldn't
> put any such stupidity past Java programmers, so better use GNU tools:
>
>
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Sander wrote:
>>>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
"Paul" == Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>Paul>
>>>Paul> Unfortunately, if this is what your build procedure consists of,
>>
>>>Don'
Greg A. Woods wrote:
> CVS is not and has never been very useful for initial development
> under any methodology that doesn't involve sharing of the code
> under development (and sharing in a non-XP manner!).
What, pray tell, does "sharing in an XP manner" mean if not
"anyone can edit anything
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Plunket wrote:
>I haven't found myself renaming files much, quite honestly. How
>does CVS deal with file deletions and additions? That's the way
>I'd prefer to go over renaming anyway.
Deleting and adding creates a new object, which has no relationship
to the
Greg A. Woods wrote:
> Hmmm... but in an eXtreme Pogramming environment you won't be checking
> things into CVS until they bloody well work now will you!
Huh? What part of "continuous integration" don't you understand?
For those who are unclear on the concept, "integration" implies
"integratin
Why do I get two of each of Noel's posts? (Using gnu.cvs.help)
Noel Yap wrote:
> So now you're saying CVS is also no good for initial
> development under XP. CVS is getting nichier by the
> moment.
I find CVS works well with the XP practices being called into
question.
> I don't think anyon
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Sander wrote:
>>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> "Paul" == Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Paul>
>>Paul> Unfortunately, if this is what your build procedure consists of,
>
>>Don't be silly. We have our own make tool (written in J
[ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 14:46:53 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> So now you're saying CVS is also no good for initial
> development under XP. CVS is getting nichier by the
> moment.
CVS is not and has never been ver
[ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 16:13:57 (-0600), Thornley, David wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> So, just remember that it will often be futile to ask
> for credible sites showing insecurities, unless you are
> active in illegal cracking organization
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 12:59:06
> (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > AFAIK, XP promotes "Refactor early, refactor
> often."
> > If so, and given Greg's premise that
> refactorisation
> > should be rare and well-thought-out, then CVS
> isn'
--- "Thornley, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > Other than theoretical attacks found by
> acadamecians
> > (that I think were later fixed) and possibly holes
> > within Visual J++, I haven't heard of any
> > insecurities, can you point me to a
[ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 12:59:06 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: refactoring when using CVS
>
> AFAIK, XP promotes "Refactor early, refactor often."
> If so, and given Greg's premise that refactorisation
> should be rare and well-thought-
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Other than theoretical attacks found by acadamecians
> (that I think were later fixed) and possibly holes
> within Visual J++, I haven't heard of any
> insecurities, can you point me to a site, please?
>
In the US, unde
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Paul" == Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Paul>
>Paul> Unfortunately, if this is what your build procedure consists of,
>Don't be silly. We have our own make tool (written in Java in fact) that
>enforces various packaging layers durin
--- "Thornley, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > AFAIK, XP promotes "Refactor early, refactor
> often."
> > If so, and given Greg's premise that
> refactorisation
> > should be rare and well-thought-out, then CVS
> isn't
> > good for within an
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So Java is worse than C. We knew that already. It
> takes more man-hours
> to write, results in more lines of code, runs on
> fewer platforms,
> generally runs a lot slower, sometimes even slower
> than the equivalent
> perl code, isn't as secure
--- Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >If you have all of your source in one big pile, you
> can do a "javac *.java"
> >and things should sort themselves out.
>
> Unfortunately, if this is what your build procedure
> consists of, then
> you lose
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> AFAIK, XP promotes "Refactor early, refactor often."
> If so, and given Greg's premise that refactorisation
> should be rare and well-thought-out, then CVS isn't
> good for within an XP environment.
>
No, it doesn't me
--- "Thornley, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > There you have it, yet another space where CVS
> isn't
> > ideal: XP.
> >
> No, XP in Java. The original XP people used
> Smalltalk,
> a dynamic object-oriented language, and I'd think
> that
> XP
> "Paul" == Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul>
Paul> Unfortunately, if this is what your build procedure consists of,
Don't be silly. We have our own make tool (written in Java in fact) that
enforces various packaging layers during designer compilation and
loadbuild.
Paul> the
[ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 05:46:41 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> --- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [ On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 13:19:22
> > (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> >
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "David" == Thornley, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>David>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> > Refactoring in C could just as easily leave you with
>>> > a whole lot of
>>> > deleted files and a
> "David" == Thornley, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> > Refactoring in C could just as easily leave you with
>> > a whole lot of
>> > deleted files and a whole lot of new files.
>>
>> The difference is th
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel Yap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Refactoring in C could just as easily leave you with
> > a whole lot of
> > deleted files and a whole lot of new files.
>
> The difference is that as a language, C doesn't demand
> such changes (ie renames and moves),
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 13:19:22
> (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
> >
> > The difference is that as a language, C doesn't
> demand
> >
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Noel Yap wrote:
>--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [ On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 07:45:24
>> (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
>> > Subject: Re: Converting ClearCase to CVS
>> >
>> > One of the most current arenas where CVS is not an
>> > ideal tool
[ On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 13:19:22 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> The difference is that as a language, C doesn't demand
> such changes (ie renames and moves), while Java does.
That's really totally and
--- "Mark A. Flacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Java, a refactoring into a different package
> practically forces a move
> into another directory. That's a real PITA with
> CVS; while that may be my
> problem rather than CVS's, it would entice me to
> find a tool that makes it
> less of a pro
Refactoring in C or C++ is child's play in CVS. In almost all cases, you
don't have to move things into a different directory.
In Java, a refactoring into a different package practically forces a move
into another directory. That's a real PITA with CVS; while that may be my
problem rather than
--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 07:45:24
> (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Converting ClearCase to CVS
> >
> > One of the most current arenas where CVS is not an
> > ideal tool is Java development since refactoring
> > causes renami
[ On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 07:45:24 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Converting ClearCase to CVS
>
> One of the most current arenas where CVS is not an
> ideal tool is Java development since refactoring
> causes renaming and moving of files.
Refactoring in C could just as easil
83 matches
Mail list logo
