[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "cvs commit" features
From: |
Reinstein, Shlomo |
Subject: |
RE: "cvs commit" features |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:35:22 +0200 |
It doesn't have to be so bad if it takes care of your "ignore" settings as
well. I think such an option may be good, at least for someone who did a
large re-org of the files in the project. However, I agree with Greg A.
Woods that the place of such options is not CVS itself but rather wrappers
of CVS or GUIs.
Shlomo
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ayers [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 8:48 PM
To: Reinstein, Shlomo
Cc: 'address@hidden'
Subject: Re: "cvs commit" features
Reinstein, Shlomo wrote:
> Of course, a user can always use "cvs add" and "cvs remove" to add or
remove
> files, but these two options can help him/her make sure they didn't forget
> to do this for some of the files.
This is one of those things that might work really well, but only
for
certain development models. For instance, I am using a GUI based
tool. It likes to create lots of files that may or may not need to be
archived. I have experimentally determined that if I archive a
certain set of them, then there seems to be no problems. Do I want
CVS to pester me about the ones I'm not archiving every time I do a
commit in that directory? No way!
And just think what would happen if you inadvertently did your CVS
commit without making clean first...
Nannyware sucks.
Optional nannying? Hmmm - doesn't the nannyware model *require*
that
the nagging not be optional?
/|/|ike