Re: refactoring when using CVS

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>In article <address@hidden>, Paul Sander wrote:
>>>--- 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.

>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 I wouldn't
>put any such stupidity past Java programmers, so better use GNU tools:

>       find . -name '*.java' -print0 | xargs -0 javac

I never said it was good or proper, just that it's common practice.
And using xargs isn't much better because it can split the command
line in awkward places.

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