[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!
Noel L Yap
Re: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!
Wed, 23 May 2001 10:16:19 -0400
OK. I think I'm starting to understand what you aiming at.
It might be easier instead to create scripts that look like CVS, but calls CC
One thing that CVS does do is to store edit and watch info in CVS/fileattr
directories within the repo. The edit feature may be moot with CC's reserved
and unreserved checkouts, but I don't know of something like a watches feature
within CC (short of implementing it yourself with attributes).
--- Noel L Yap <address@hidden> wrote: >
Forgive me if I still think you're crazy.
> I see two ways to attack this:
> 1. Get permission from your company to use CVS for
> such projects.
They've spent millions on Clearcase. They are NOT
going to accept that CVS can do the job - period.
> 2. If you're keeping a separate repository at your
> site with no outside access,
> why not just use ClearCase? Whether or not you're
> using CVS, you'll still be
> faced with the merging issue.
We are not and will not keep a seperate repository.
This is exactly what the whole thread is aimed at
Think of CVS as split into a frontend which does all
the user interaction and manages concurrency and trees
of files, and a backend which just knows how to store
a versioned file in a repository.
All I'm asking is:
Does CVS really care how this backend is implemented?
Could I store the files in a different format e.g.
compressed, encrypted, both?
or could I use a file system that had built in
versioning, instead of having to have RCS cobble up
that abstraction for me?
or could I use Clearcase (a versioning file system).
Because If I could, then I can have people and tools
using CVS and Clearcase working on the same repository
without needing to know any of the details.
Then I would not have to worry about keeping two
repositories in sync.
Does that explain it better ?
> OK - I'm mad, now here me out....
> Imagine you work for a large company.
> They decide on a 'strategic' SCM - Clearcase - in
> which every project
> must live.
> They then task you with looking at OpenSource
> development methodologies
> and tools.
> Unsurprisingly, all of these use CVS - because it
> does the job and is
> free - in all senses of the word.
> I can look at forking each OpenSource project that I
> might like to
> deploy within my company (e.g. SourceForge,
> Tinderbox, Bonsai etc.),
> producing a Clearcase backend, and maybe merging
> (licences and project
> owners permitting) back my code, in the hope that it
> will continue to be
> maintained and I won't be left out on a branch, or I
> can consider
> something wierd :
> Tools using CVS for their SCM, ulimately as I
> understand it (I'm open to
> correction here), end up calling RCS. RCS has a nice
> small, closed set
> of functionality. I would be surprised if Clearcase
> could not replicate
> all of this... - So
> What is to stop me writing several wrapper scripts
> (e.g. ci, co, rcs
> etc...) which actually call clearcase to do the
> file-based version
> control ? This would be one piece of well defined
> work. Most well
> written CVS backends would continue to work
> oblivious to the fact that
> the implementation of the file versioning had
> changed. I would be happy
> since I could painlessly deploy OpenSource tools and
> work through CVS
> with them and my company would be happy because they
> would have all
> their source stuck into a repository which has cost
> them a small
> I guess what I'm asking is, "Is the interface
> between CVS and a project
> in it's Repository completely described by RCS", or
> does CVS do things
> like go under the covers and parse the contents of
> RCS files ?
> What would the gotchas be ?
> Do you still think I'm crazy ?
> BTW - I work on two OpenSource projects using CVS in
> my own time, and
> try to advocate use of and contributing to
> OpenSource and FreeSoftware
> in my company, so if you fancy flaming me for
> wanting to rip-off
> everyone's hard work and put it to my own
> capitalistic ends, please
> think again.
> Thanks for your time,
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at
> Info-cvs mailing list
> This communication is for informational purposes
> only. It is not intended as
> an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of
> any financial instrument
> or as an official confirmation of any transaction.
> All market prices, data
> and other information are not warranted as to
> completeness or accuracy and
> are subject to change without notice. Any comments
> or statements made herein
> do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan
> Chase & Co., its
> subsidiaries and affiliates.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.
RE: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!, Weber, Mathias-Henry 1254 PPW-P1, 2001/05/23
Re: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!, Noel L Yap, 2001/05/23
Re: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!, David D. Hagood, 2001/05/23
Re: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!,
Noel L Yap <=
RE: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!, Harkins, Jim, 2001/05/23
Re: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!, James Melton, 2001/05/23
RE: Crazy idea - replace RCS backend with ClearCase...!!!, Weber, Mathias-Henry 1254 PPW-P1, 2001/05/28