RE: refactoring when using CVS

[Noel Yap]

--- "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> 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
> > into a product and the control of changes into
> that
> > product.  You seem to think that it's just the
> latter.
> 
> You are very wrong in your interpretation of what I
> think.
> (as you often are, sadly)

Assuming you post what you think (and think what you
post), then I have no other choice than to
misinterpret.  IOW, you completely ignored the former
part of SCM (ie identification), am I to assume that
either you left it out on purpose or that you don't
think it's part of SCM?

So, Greg, if you do know that identification is part
of SCM, then how do you justify your previous
statement that CVS is to be used only after the first
release (no matter what methodology is being used)?

> The link between configuration and change management
> is much tighter
> than you seem to realise.

Please enlighten us (especially in the context of this
thread).

> > It's news to me 'cos you work under a different
> > definition of SCM than the rest of the world. 
> Here's
> > what I found when I did a google on "configuration
> > management definition"
> > 
> > http://www.lal.in2p3.fr/SI/CMT/show/tsld002.htm
> 
> OK, and what part of those definitions do you
> believe are in any way
> contrary to what I said about SCM coming into its
> full use after you've
> made the first release?

The part about identification (as if I wasn't clear
enough before).  Identification must occur before the
first release.  <sarcasm>Or do you somehow do the
identification after you release?</sarcasm>

> > The original discussion, AFAIK, was comparing
> > ClearCase and CVS.  I made a statement saying that
> CVS
> > is not _ideal_ (it is usable, though) when
> > refactoring.  If you look at ClearCase, it handles
> > refactoring with ease even under a concurrent
> > development environment.  Of course, you're also
> > correct that refactoring requires fore-thought, it
> is
> > a part of design after all.  However, with CVS,
> you're
> > more apt to be forced to serialize development
> while
> > refactoring while other tools handle it more
> > gracefully.
> 
> It all depends on what you mean by "refactoring".
> 
> The refactoring required by XP does not necessarilly
> happen at the
> implementation level, at least not initially
> (implementation naturally
> follows, but the effect will be different than what
> happens when you
> refactor an interface in the implementation).

Refactoring is refactoring (are you also going to say,
"It depends on what you mean by 'is').  Often-times it
involves moves/renames.

Are you now going to say, "Refactoring is OK under
CVS, but don't do just any kind of refactoring.  Be
sure you serialize development when you need to
rename/move files."?

Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com