Gennaro Prota wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:23:31 -0500, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
PS: did you read my suggestion about commit triggers? I don't remember reading it. But I do remember that was suggested some time ago regarding inspection. I think I mentioned some problems with that back then ;-)
Rene, please, summarize it here for this poor developer :-) Really, going through the archives was driving me crazy. I can imagine one reason for objection: multifile commits; since CVS doesn't have a commit or rollback logic, if one of the files isn't checked in, say, because of tabs you have to manually figure out the new status of the repository. Apart from that (and suggest to switch to SVN), any other issues?
I can only remember one other right now. And it's a deployment issue. We would have to match the compiled inspect program to the CVS servers that SF uses. I don't know if they still do this, but this is made harder by SF using multiple servers for CVS, so it's not clear if they are all the same. Of course this is assuming SF even lets one have binaries running within the CVS server, as opposed to scripts. Along with that is the possibility of totally locking ourselves out of CVS access if the program happens to not work. Since we would be unable to fix it by checking in a replacement. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo