On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:31:20 +1000, "Arthur Barrett" <arthur.barr...@march-hare.com> wrote:
>Bo, > >Most people who want SCCI really want VSS, so it makes sense that it behaves >that way. What in particular did you find was the deal breaker though? > >> Dev adds file and makes module build OK, then commits and >> heads for his holiday trip without also adding and committing >> the new file whereupon the module fails to build for all >> others.... > >What? Commit doesn't trigger a build? ;) > >I know someone who worked for a startup that had an automatic build run >nightly - if the build failed on something you had committed to in the past 24 >hours your beeper went off (at 1am) and into work you must go - fix it by 8am >in the morning (including re-running the build) or pack up your desk. > ;-) Well, we cannot do builds thta way because we work in Delphi and I know of no way to build automatically on the server... Also we do commits at the end of day even if the code at the moment does not build, so it would not be a good test anyway. Concerning the deal breaker, I felt that since these guys on the embedded development side have not used integrated SC before (they used command line cvs or WinCvs) and the plugin would behave in this strange non-concurrent way I decided against it. The only benefit I can see is really that an integrated SC could keep track of new files... -- /Bo (Bo Berglund, developer in Sweden) _______________________________________________ cvsnt mailing list cvsnt@cvsnt.org http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt Upgrade to CVS Suite for more features and support: http://march-hare.com/cvsnt/
