[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: cvswrappers - any better suggestions ?

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: RE: cvswrappers - any better suggestions ?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:02:30 -0400 (EDT)

[ On Monday, April 2, 2001 at 08:51:31 (+0200), Peter Ring wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: cvswrappers - any better suggestions ?
> Quite often these days, CVS is not something that you choose -- you get
> chosen by CVS, much as you get chosen by Microsoft operating systems and
> development tools, simply because it's ubiquitous. Like it or not, there's
> not much respect for original design goals in the ways of the world.

Fortunately CVS is anything but ubiquitous.  Even within the open source
world (whatever the heck that is! :-), CVS is not the choice of all the
masses (and of course it's never been the only choice).

> I suppose that 'full RCS compatibility' is not a goal by itself -- if you
> might as well use RCS, then why use CVS?

The issue has more to do with keeping the repository in a standard
format.  This is of enormous importance in assuring backward and forward
compatability.  A repository is literally something that keeps all of
your eggs in one basket.  If you start messing with the weave on that
basket without first removing the eggs then you're as likely to have
them all drop right out the bottom.

One other reason to do this is so that should someone who has a better
idea, and the time to implement and support it, come along then he/she
can be assured that pulling stuff out of any given CVS repository
without having to write custom code to handle what would effectively
become a proprietary (well open, but unique) and possibly changing

                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

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