Re: refactoring when using CVS

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Sander <address@hidden> 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> then you lose traceability between your sources and shippables, and
>Paul> you can't assess the impact of any change you make to your source
>Paul> code.  That makes it really really hard to accomplish the common task
>Paul> of shipping minimal patches when bugs are found in the product.

>I believe that you would be insane to handle Java source in the fashion
>described in my previous posting.  My point was, however, that the language
>does not *force* you to keep the source in some sort of coherent order so
>that it's incorrect for people (including me) to claim that it does.

I'm glad that we're in agreement.  I do know some Java programmers who
literally do use "javac `find . -name '*.java' -print`" as their build
procedures, so I assume the worst when somebody mentions the practice.
And that procedure is fine as long as the programmer is just tinkering,
but it's not the right approach for production code.

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden