[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: What is the true use ?

From: Michael L. Hostbaek
Subject: Re: What is the true use ?
Date: 23 Nov 2001 13:12:07 GMT
User-agent: slrn/ (FreeBSD)

Michael Sims tried to tell us something, and all I got was:
>  At 08:17 PM 11/22/2001 +0000, Michael L. Hostbaek wrote:
>  ./htdocs/
>  ./htdocs/index.html (a simple redirector to ./dgc)
>  ./htdocs/myphpblog/
>  ./htdocs/webpics/
>  ./htdocs/dgc/
>  ./htdocs/irma/

yeah, for ease. but it is not a funtionality issue.
>  I don't version control the index.html redirector, since there is no 
>  need.  I don't version control the dgc directory because it's a compiled 
>  CGI program I installed that I couldn't modify anyway.  As you can see, all 
>  of the other directories have modules that are named the same as their 
>  directory names, with the exception of irma.  The reason is that I also 
>  want to version control the "irma" directory in my apache includes dir:

Well, that all depends on your docroot layout. 40% of my site contents
is located in my index file. So it definently needs to go in CVS.

>  If you don't version control the entire docroot tree then there won't BE 
>  any usage dir in the repository for them to commit to.  If they switch to 
>  the usage dir and do a "cvs co" they'll get a "no CVS version here, do 'cvs 
>  co module' first" or something like that.
>  I'm not sure because I've never used it, but I think you might be able to 
>  use "cvsignore" to have CVS ignore the mrtg and usage directories, if you 
>  still want to import the entire docroot as a single module.

hmm... hmmm.... /me ponders...

>  CVS directories hanging around in the docroot don't really hurt anything, 
>  at least not in any way I am aware of.  And since I don't version control 
>  the whole tree, the CVS dirs only exist in each subdirectory anyway...for 
>  example, I have:

I know, but it is not clean.. 
>  There might be some disadvantage to doing checkouts directly into a 
>  production environment, but I'm not aware of them.  It seems like exporting 
>  then copying is an unnecessary extra step that only makes things more 
>  difficult.
We can most certainly agree on that part. I am going to play around with
a Makefile, and see what I come up with. And if it is not saticfactory I
will most certainly use your layout..

>  We'll get this communication thing figured out pretty soon... :)

hehe.. Thanks for your input.

Michael L. Hostbaek
-= Thanks for all the fish.. =-

reply via email to

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