[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data?

From: Thornley, David
Subject: RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data?
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:53:53 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 3:24 PM
> [ On Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 09:38:17 (-0500), Thornley, 
> David wrote: ]
> > Subject: RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data?
> >
> > > Learn to separate your unmergable files form your other stuff 
> > > and build
> > > procedures and processes to bring them together only at 
> build time!
> > > 
> > Why?  What do I get out of this that I don't get by keeping the
> > binary source files with the text source files and use CVS on both
> > of them?  What does it buy me?
> "Doctor!  Doctor!  It hurts when I bang my head against the wall!"
> Well stop banging your head against the wall!!!!!
Except that I'm not banging my head against the wall, and it doesn't
hurt.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not having problems
with the way CVS manages the stuff I work with, which does include
some binaries.

> If you keep your binaries and your sources separate you won't 
> have this
> problem in the first place!!!!!
What problem?  You've claimed that putting binaries into CVS is bad,
and now you're claiming that I've got a problem with it.  I'm happy
with CVS.  I wish it could handle unmergeable data as well as it
handles mergeable, but that isn't possible, so I'm (a) not considering
it a problem, and (b) not going to buy that keeping these apart is
going to solve any problem I may have.

> > You've accused me in another post of not being able to see 
> a screwdriver
> > because there's a hammer in my hand.  I've asked what a 
> screwdriver is,
> > and where to get one, and so far I've got a piece of metal 
> I can pound
> > into something almost as useful to drive in screws as the claw of my
> > hammer.  If you'd show me something better, like a piece of 
> metal I could
> > pound into a better screwdriver than I've got, I'm very 
> willing to learn.
> I did show you something better.  Several things in fact!  
> Here's one of
> the alternatives, AGAIN:
> Keep and manage your binaries separately from your source 
> code.  Create
> a build system that pulls the various components together as desired.
Why, in the name of Babbage, is that supposed to be better?  I still
can't automatically merge binaries, so it's no advantage there.  So
what do I get if I do that?

1.  I get to maintain two version control systems in parallel.
2.  I get to maintain a more complicated build system.
3.  I get to try to keep the CVS stuff and the other stuff correctly

What I don't get is an easier way of managing binary files.
> That's the easiest solution.  It's so easy it's child's play -- brain
> dead simple.  There literally can't be anything simpler.
You know what's easier than CVS?  Just keep all your source files in
a directory tree, and let everybody change them as they need.  Child's
play; there can't be anything simpler. Personally, I don't want to
do that, but your needs may differ.

However, I think you're wrong.  I have a simpler thing to do than manage
text-based sources in CVS and binary sources in another directory with
a more complicated build system:  I can put them all in CVS!  As long
as I make sure the -kb goes on (and this has not been a problem in my
shop), it's even simpler than hacking the build system.

> When you have a problem managing disparate types of data, don't manage
> them the same way!!!!!
What's the problem?  And why is using one management technique worse than
using two different techniques if the more complex process doesn't do
anything more?

> > Right.  This is the point that you completely miss.  If you 
> are going to
> > tell me not to use a particular tool for a particular task, 
> you need to
> > show me either that that tool doesn't work for that task, 
> or that there
> > is a better tool.  You haven't done either.
Or at least I want some things my wife would object to (she doesn't
want me buying more books).

Anyway, what I want for source code management here is to use something
like CVS without people telling me I'm doing something wrong.

> The point of saying you can't see the screwdriver because you've got a
> hammer in your hand is that you aren't thinking outside the box and
> you're failing to see how to separate your problems out into managable
> subdomains.
No, I'm failing to see *why* to separate my problems (such as they are)
out into subdomains less manageable than the single domain.

> You're still seeing CVS as the only tool in your toolbox.  It 
I have lots of tools.  I have language software, editing software, mail
software, and that's just Emacs.  I've got a lot of tools besides Emacs
and CVS also.  I just don't see why I am expected to use a hammer for
some nails and a rock for others.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]