Re: CVS bashing?

[Russ Tremain]

At 5:21 PM -0700 4/11/01, Paul Sander wrote:
>All of the points made in that page are right on.  I can go on to say more:
>
>- The modules database isn't versioned, which can affect reproducibility
>  requirements.

I think that this is an important point to reinforce.

basically, if you add a target to a definition for one release,
you need to keep it forever.

i.e.

suppose "releaseone" has:

foomodule       -a aa bb cc dd

you branch it and move on.  in "releasetwo" you delete dd.

you cannot delete dd from the module def, or you
break foomodule in releaseone.

one way around this is to create a naming convention
for the module defs, i.e.,

foomodule_releaseone    -a aa bb cc dd

foomodule_releasetwo    -a aa bb cc

and adjust your versioned build scripts accordingly.

this prevents cvs from having to consider dd for releasetwo.

-Russ



>- The *info files accept a comprehensive list of sources on their command
>  lines, limiting their scalability.  (After a branch merge on a very large
>  project, the command line buffer of the shell invoking the *info file
>  can overflow, causing breakage.)
>- Triggers registered via the modules database are sometimes persistent,
>  causing suprises after modifications.
>- The history file grows without bound, and can't be managed in any natural
>  way.
>
>I'm sure I can go on if I think about this for a few minutes...
>
>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>
>Someone brought up a site on another mailing list about CVS and its
>limitations and was citing this as a reason to not use CVS...what do you
>all think about this?  Some of this stuff I have personally witmessed
>(i.e. large binary file problem, no directory versioning)  but I'm
>curious as to others opinions...
>
>http://www.snuffybear.com/scm_grind_cvs.htm
>
>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Info-cvs mailing list
>address@hidden
>http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs