[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.


-----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
> 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
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*
the nagging not be optional?


reply via email to

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