[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new user - do people store compiled code under cvs
From: |
Paul Sander |
Subject: |
Re: new user - do people store compiled code under cvs |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:18:39 -0800 |
People do, but in most cases it's not considered best practice. If you
can reproduce the binaries from source, then don't put them under CVS;
tag the sources and store the environment in a reproducible way.
If the binaries are not reproducible from source, then there are two
schools of thought. The first is to install the binaries in some
well-known place and treat them like any other aspect of the build
environment. The second is to apply the rigor to the binaries like any
other file that can't be reproduced without manual intervention (i.e.
source files) and check them in and write a build/deployment process to
match. Heated debate supports both practices.
On Nov 29, 2004, at 1:39 PM, address@hidden wrote:
? That is, would you save versions of things like executables, p-code,
or DLLs? My gut says no, better to pull the source code for the
version/revision we want to run/test/distrubute and compile from that
whenever we need it. But what do people generally do?