Re: Problem with importing third-party sources and adding/committing changes

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 09:46:55 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: Problem with importing third-party sources and 
>> adding/committing changes
>>
>> >Paul you keep spreading myths and mistruths.  I wish you'd stop.
>> 
>> This is simply not true, Greg, and you owe me a public apology.

>As I say above it's the other way around Paul.

>If you cannot refrain from spreading myths and mistruths, especially in
>relation to what I have said then please DO NOT EVER respond to my
>posts, at least not publicly.

As a rule, I don't attack a person's character whenever I disagree with
them.  Not even you, Greg.  Though in a few of my less proud moments I
have resorted to that tactic, and for that I apologize.

However, my technical arguments are sound and are based on many years
of real-world experience.  And I will continue to defend them vigorously.

>> I disagree with your claim that the commitinfo hook is sufficient.
>> Certain policies, like naming conventions, are best enforced at add time.

>You have no idea what you're talking about.  You consistently ignore
>current practices and the context of an idea and you consistently ignore
>previous arguments even if they've been beaten into your head by a dozen
>people before.

I don't know what you're practicing, but it clearly doesn't match best
practices that I've observed in a number of shops.  There's a reason why
I continue to dispute certain arguments, which is that I have experienced
first-hand the down-side consequences of them.  If some people choose not
to learn from my bad experiences, so be it; just don't pretend to know
what you're talking about.

>In CVS the "add" command is supposed to be equivalent and orthogonal to
>the "rm" comand.  The _entire_ basis for this proposal is to stop having
>to have contact with the repo server during "cvs add" in the first place!!!

Yep.  And that's fine, provided CVS doesn't significantly change its
feature set.  If you're happy with that arrangement, and you seem to be,
then fine.

But if there's serious interest in addressing conflicting requirements that
have been stated in the past, then some debate is indicated so that consensus
can be built.

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