Re: add hook question (was Re: Problem with importing third-party sources and adding/committing changes)

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 09:19:18 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: add hook question (was Re: Problem with importing third-party 
>> sources and adding/committing changes)
>>
>> It depends on the nature and extent of the changes.  I can easily imagine
>> scenarios in which lost productivity would be measured in days, even
>> assuming that all files are ASCII.

>Your imagination is far too ripe with bizzare paranoia.

It's backed by many years of experience.

>There is no trigger for "cvs rm" and there MUST _NOT_ be.

I wasn't going to mention this, but since you brought it up, removals should
also be triggerable events and the same philophy, whatever it is, should be
applied to both add-time and remove-time triggers.

I have experienced situations where users have removed and committed
stuff that had bad effects on the rest of the project.  Coworkers have
experienced user errors that cleaned out the entire source base of a
project, requiring many days to correct.  It's situations like this
where triggers like this are valuable because they can limit destructive
changes to users who know what they're doing.

>There is no trigger for "cvs add" and there MUST _NOT_ be.

Again here we disagree.  Just because you can live without it doesn't mean
the rest of the world can.

We've already discussed how to add such a capability in such a way that
it involves zero overhead for those who don't want it:  Register no
triggers and defer their enforcement until commit time.  But for shops
that NEED them, they can register the trigger and turn off deferment.

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