[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: CVS and Jar files: Should you import Jar into the Repository? Why o

From: Thornley, David
Subject: RE: CVS and Jar files: Should you import Jar into the Repository? Why or why not
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:59:38 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> [ On Tuesday, March 5, 2002 at 21:52:00 (GMT), Richard Caley wrote: ]
> > 
> > I know it (even processsed them a couple of times), but it's
> > irrelevent. Storing as diffs is just an optimisation, not a 
> necessary
> > feature. 
> It might not be a "necessary feature", but it's the way RCS files work
> today and in combination with the forced concurrent edits feature of
> CVS, it makes it nearly insane to try to track non-diff-able and
> non-patch-able files!
Why?  Lots of people on this list who appear to be sane have used
CVS to track limited numbers of non-diffable files.  The points to
remember are (1) it works in CVS, although not as well as other
formats do, and (2) there's nothing in general that's all that much
better.  (Remember that, although binary diff programs exist, they're
just storage optimization unless a diff between two versions of a file
can be patched into a third and still make sense.)

> > Works better than the non existant alernative.
> There's an almost inifinite number of better alternatives -- some of
> them have yet to be written, of course, but you shouldn't let 
> that stop
> you.
I don't know about anybody else, but my projects right now do not
include writing a system better than CVS.  If I were to do that, it
would take a large amount of time, and I really doubt I'd make that
back.  (I don't know how SubVersion will handle non-mergeable files,
but I'd rather get some work done now rather than wait and do nothing
useful until it's ready for prime time.)

> > Feel free to propose an alternative, if it's better everyone will be
> > happy to hear. 
> I did already -- and I've used it flawlessly many times 
> myself.  Others
> have proposed almost exactly the same concepts too.  Multiple times.
The alternatives you propose tend to be on the order of using some
other versioning system in parallel, which really doesn't give much
more functionality than CVS, requires additional administration and
training, and give a lot more opportunity for making mistakes than
just keeping binaries in CVS.  While you may be able to use it
flawlessly, that seems to me more testimony to your ability and
knowledge than a recommendation for general use.

reply via email to

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