[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 00:29:31 -0800

On Feb 2, 2005, at 12:53 PM, address@hidden wrote:

[ On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 03:35:48 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

Committing empty files may not be permitted by project policy.

Straw man!

(and a B.S. policy if I've ever seen one!)

Many shops seem to think that it's reasonable to allow users to commit code only after it has successfully compiled. I happen to think it's a bogus policy, too, but then the shops that employ such policies have no appreciation of good change control and they think that this is a method that's "good enough". Unfortunately, my experience has been that cussing at it doesn't make it go away.

No, I don't really want total control over all client operations.  But
I would like more opportunities for the server to say "no".

"cvs add" (and "cvs rm") operations DO NOT EVER CONCERN THE SERVER. Period.

Perhaps, but I want the option to ask it if it foresees any problems with my actions. If you don't like it, don't use it.

Paul Sander       | "To do two things at once is to do neither"
address@hidden | Publilius Syrus, Roman philosopher, 100 B.C.

reply via email to

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