Re: [linuxsh-dev] [RFC] LinuxSH code reorg

[M. R. B. <mr...@0x...>]

* Greg Banks <gb...@po...> on Fri, Aug 03, 2001:

> 
>   I think you've just illustrated my point about CVS version numbers becoming
> non-intuitive once you start using branches.

With tags, keep track of version numbers isn't that big of a deal.

> 
> 
> > A drop-in tree can be done without CVS branches just fine, though CVS branches
> > would be a lot cleaner in the long run.
> 
>   So basically, we spend a large learning curve and an indeterminate
> number of mistakes to gain some cleanliness?  I'm not convinced 
> this tradeoff is a good idea.
> 

I still can't fathom the general sentiment of this group that "just because
we don't know how to do it right, we'll brute force the hell out of it."  I
mean come on, if you're doing project management, you use the right tools
for the right job.  What else are you going to use besides CVS?  And since
it _is_ CVS, why not use it efficiently and correctly?  There are too many
helpful resources out there that this "large learning curve" becomes a moot
point very quickly.

I you want me to write a quick tutorial on CVS, for the benefit of those
who wish to use it but know little about it, then I'll do it in tandem with
the Developers Guidelines.

> > If people don't like the idea of dealing
> > with CVS branches, so be it. That still shouldn't have any bearing on the
> > drop-in tree or CVS tag usage.
> 
>   Yes, separate issues.
> 

Like Paul and you've said, we won't know unless we try, right?

M. R.