On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: > > Are you suggesting to do this incrementally? In which way would that > > help, for the individual developer, who needs to resync one or more > > CWSs against the inevitably changed include portion of her files? > > The developer has better control. > > If I touch includes in any file of any module of any CWS, and have to > resync to the big-bang-MWS (the one containing incguards01), I will > almost certainly get a conflict. This happens for all people touching > any include in any file of any module of any CWS. > Yes. But these are easy-to-fix conflicts. My conjecture would be that very few CWS touch more than a handful of include statements, which would be a very bearable pain.
> If I touch includes in any file of any module of any CWS, and let the > script run immediately before I pass the CWS to QA, then at least for > this particular CWS, and this particular module (more precise: all files > in this module where I tampered with the includes), I will not have > conflicts. > If you are in the lucky situation of developing this module alone, then yes. But this is rather uncommon in other areas. > IoW: There's a little less pain. Still, I am unsure whether the reduced > pain is worth the gain. But if we minimize the former, I'd perhaps be > willing to sacrifice this uncertainty to the higher abstract goals of > removing some uglyness ;) > Hey, looks like we've a deal then - do it like that in dbaccess, which, as mentioned, I'll leave alone in incguards01. And the rest gets cleansed by kendy's script an me. Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
