[Wplug-web] CVS

[Evan DiBiase]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Zach Paine wrote:

> I'd rather stick with BK.  What is the current problem?  It always works
> for me and it does things that other systems don't do:

You're enjoying part of the current problem right now :-) We're spending
more time lately fixing the repository than developing. bk _should not_
be breaking this often.

> 	* Keeps symlinks under revision control
> 		We need this for the announce scripts.  While they could be
> in the main repository, I don't want anonymous users to grab the scripts
> and see the passwords in them.  Symlinks in the main repository point to
> them.

Anonymous users can grab the scripts that use the announcements database
anonymously right now out of the unstable repo. Same for the main web
database.

What symlinks are you talking about?

> 	* Push/Pull system
> 		I think it would be hard to have two lines of development
> like we have with cvs or rcs

Can someone more experienced with CVS comment on this? It seems like it
would be rather straightforward.

> 	* Revision History
> 		It seems to me that bk has more advanced and more easily
> accessible revision history.

Again, I haven't used CVS a whole lot, but it seems like the revision
stuff works pretty well for those who use CVS (like SourceForge, for
example).

> 	* Easy patching system
> 		The changesets make it easier to back up to an older
> change, or create patches

AFAIK it's pretty easy to do all of this in CVS, too, else people
wouldn't be using it.

> I'm not dead set against CVS, but I need someone to tell me why it would
> make my developing easier?

The main reason I advocate it is that it will _work_, which means you
actually get to develop as opposed to spend 1.5 days or more trying to
be able to push to the repository. Additionally, you're going to have
more tools available that interface well with CVS, because it's more
well known than bk.

I like bk when it works, but when it doesn't, it's painful. And it
doesn't work a lot.

-Evan