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

[Greg B. <gb...@po...>]

"M. R. Brown" wrote:
> 
> * 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.

  The point is that CVS branches are complex and difficult for
many people to consistently handle properly.  When you accidentally
check a change into the wrong branch, having a tag is not going
to help you recover from that situation.

> 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."

  You seem to be under the impression that "right" = "the way that uses
the maximum CVS features".  Me, I figure "right" = "the way that will
work, will continue to work, and will gain acceptance easily".

>  I
> mean come on, if you're doing project management, you use the right tools
> for the right job.  

  Unless they're from Microsoft, yes.  And presuming I can afford
to buy it.  And presuming it runs on a platform I have access to.

> What else are you going to use besides CVS? 

  No-one's suggesting anything else now.  BitKeeper *was* suggested 18
months ago.

> And since
> it _is_ CVS, why not use it efficiently and correctly?

  That's precisely what I'm trying to do.  Using CVS in a way which
results in more errors and more time fixing them, is *not* efficient.

  Remember, we're trying to maximise productivity, not code coverage
of the CVS executable.

> 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.

  Sure.  Do you want to look at the one I wrote and presented in
Mar 2000, that convinced people to start using CVS?

  Look, it's not like I'm averse to imposing a learning curve on
people, *if* it leads to clear benefits.  But the way I see it is,
we can go CVS branches or separate directories.  The storage
requirements are basically the same, the bandwidth requirements
are basically the same, the practical results (when everything
works right) is basically the same.  The only difference is that
CVS branches require all the developers to learn something new
(and they get to stuff it up more frequently) in exchange for which
a handful of developers get some warm fuzzy feelings about
"correctness".

  So where's the clear benefit?

  If someone asked you to learn to drive your car with a joystick
instead of a steering wheel, because it was "correct", what would
you say?  You'd say, "so what's in it for me?"  Then you'd answer
yourself, "well, nothing."

> > > 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?

  Yeah.  Maybe people won't mind learning complex stuff for
no good reason.  Weirder things have happened.

  I suggest we drop the argument about CVS branches, which
is moot until 2.5 is released anyway, and concentrate on
stuff we can agree on.  Otherwise we'll go around in these
pointless little circles.

Greg.
-- 
If it's a choice between being a paranoid, hyper-suspicious global
village idiot, or a gullible, mega-trusting sheep, I don't look
good in mint sauce.                      - jd, slashdot, 11Feb2000.