Hello, Denis Arnaud wrote:
> A few advantages are: [...] Please note that most of the advantages solve problems which we have never had. Maybe it will be useful if I present a little report on the recent migration from CVS to SVN that we did where I work. Just for the record, the codebase which was involved spans +400 logical projects and has some +5M lines of Java code. I have no idea about C++ statistics, because the C++ code is so widely distributed and a significant part of it is generated from database data that it is not clear how to count it. We have been using CVS for very long. Recently there was a big push for SVN migration. The preparation took about a year and finally we did it. What has changed? Well, that's the problem - nobody really noticed. The majority of people just interact with CVS (or SVN) from their favorite IDE, by pressign appropriate button. They did it before and they do it now as well. If I ask today any of my colleagues how do they perceive this migration, they will answer that *nothing* has changed. This can be due to the fact that we do not heavily use any of the features that would make a difference for us. The update/commit cycle with occasional tagging is the only thing that we do. In this context, the migration changed nothing and was therefore pointless. Interestingly, after the migration some of us realized that we would benefit from changing the development *process*, not just a tool, and we started to think about Git. Of course we will not migrate to Git anytime soon after investing in SVN. This is exactly my point. If we really was to benefit from the migration, it would have to be more substantial than just moving to SVN. I am using Git in some other project and *this* is what has changed my way of thinking about the process as a whole. In other words, if we are going to invest in better source control system, it needs to be a more fundamental move. > What does prevent you from using CVS? > > Our company, like many others, closes all the ports to outside, except > of course ports 80 (http) and 443 (https). SSH port (21) is > closed/forbidden The admins' role is to *enable* others to do their work, not to prevent it. If you go and tell them that you need outgoing SSH to do your work, they cannot refuse it. If they do, then you have much much deeper problem than the one you describe. And note that if you solve that deeper problem then the ability to work with SOCI will be only a minor gain in the whole. > CPPUnit just produces a standard output, from those tests. "Migrating > tests to CPPUnit" just means adding the existing test functions into > CPPUnit macros, something like: > ----------------------- > CPPUNIT_ASSERT_NO_THROW (test1();); > CPPUNIT_ASSERT_NO_THROW (test2();); There is no benefit from doing this, since each test function contains *many* assert statements that provide more information than you could obtain from the above. Regards, -- Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Soci-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/soci-users
