On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Diane Holt wrote: > --- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just curious, do you also do this for the perhaps most basic of build > > tools of them all: javac? > > The whole JDK goes into source control.
And is this what we should recommend our developers to do ? Reproducing a release is indeed very important - and we should document what tools where used for each release ( I don't think we do that in many projects ). But for day-to-day developement - especially for those using IDEs that have javac, ant, etc built in - that's not the best choice ( and may not even be possible ). I use xemacs, but I have many shortcuts and macros and ant in the PATH. Java is far more complex than ant - yet they kept almost everything backward compatible. It may be painfull for developers, but every time some changes sliped in, the pain for users was quite significant. ( like sun.tools changes, or any of the things Sam got with gump and jdk1.4 ). The argument that we should make our life easier by removing old stuff and forcing users to upgrade is very wrong. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
