RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data?

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Friday, July 13, 2001 at 16:54:08 (-0500), Cameron, Steve wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: How well does CVS handle other types of data? 
>
> The point of it is that it works as-is for me today.  I avoid
> the effort of thinking up, (or copying), implementing, testing,
> backing up, etc. some other method or storing/retrieving these
> files.  You're providing a solution to a problem which I don't 
> have.  The satisfaction of virtuously not storing unmergeable
> files in  CVS isn't enough of a motivator to get me to quit 
> doing it, and no other motivators have materialized.

OK, so if you don't have a problem with the way you're doing things then
why are you participating in this thread (other than just to say "I have
no problems")?  Forgive me for deleting past messages, but didn't you
start out by saying that you did have problems or that there were
drawbacks to the way you're storing non-mregable files in CVS?

In your particular case I can't even begin to fathom what would motivate
you to commit 3rd-party object code to CVS, even if you didn't ever do
any merging of branches!

Having to store and retrieve them from the repository every time in
every working directory seems to me to be a burden even if they always
go in and out byte-for-byte identical every time!  What a sad waste of
effort and resources.

Even back before I used CVS I would never ever have stored such
3rd-party object code in SCCS or RCS -- I did in fact just install it,
once per version, on the build machines, and then used it through a
version tracked Makefile variable that specified the appropriate '-L' to
get the right version....  It seemed like the best way then, and it
certainly seems like the best way now!

-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

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