Fair enough. But I'm still curious what people want to do with SCM, in
the build system. Every time I've tried to integrate the two, I've
regretted it.
Douglas Melzer wrote:
>
> I'd prefer to have an implementation that fully addresses a particular SCM tool's
>capabilities.
>
> My project has just switched from Visual Source Safe to a proprietary SCM tool and
>it wasn't that big of deal to update my ant build configuration.
>
> My experience is that most companies adopt a particular SCM tool, so I believe
>greater emphasis should be placed upon fully supporting an SCM tool's capabilities as
>opposed to trying to identify the common features.
>
> While some common terms for checkin, checkout, etc. could be identified many of the
>command options are going to vary with the particular SCM tool. Having these options
>retain the naming conventions of the particular SCM tool will make it much easier to
>refer back to SCM tool documentation when necessary.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Thinking about Source Control
>
> How do people want to use source control from within ANT. I can think
> of several ways, and some are very "bad" and others perhaps not. While
> it might not be possible to unify all SCMs, perhaps if we discover what
> it is people are trying to achieve, a common subset can be found.
> --
> David Corbin
> Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
> http://www.machturtle.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
David Corbin
Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
http://www.machturtle.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
