On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ceki [iso-8859-1] Gülcü wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> At 11:25 12.04.2001 -0700, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> >Whether or not there is a nice, easy, "all in one" download with
> >everything you need has absolutely nothing to do with whether binaries are
> >checked into CVS.
>
> True. There is an important distinction indeed. Call it conventional
> thinking on my part.
>
> Nevertheless, it is quite natural to add binaries into CVS if they are
> part of the distribution.
>
Quite natural to those who like it, quite unnatural to those who don't :-)
> So if I understand you correctly, then having binaries (e.g. jar
> files) in the distribution is OK but it less so to put the same
> binaries into CVS. Do I understand you correctly?
>
Yep. That is why Tomcat binary distributions have everything you need to
run Tomcat (except a JDK and the JSSE classes if you're using SSL).
> Why do you think that it is wrong to have binaries in CVS?
>
All the disadvantages you listed.
All the disadvantages Sam listed.
The irrationality (IMHO) of checking generated artifacts into a source
repository (same goes for HTML that's generated from XML in some projects,
but we won't go there right now ;-)
The fact that, once in a while, you have to do maintenance on a dialup
connection instead of a nice fast DSL line. Case in point -- I had to
update jakarta-site2 while at O'Reilly Enterprise Java over a modem
connection, just after all the checked-in JAR files were updated to recent
versions. It took 45 f*cking minutes to do the CVS update. Suffice it to
say that the web site can go hang the next time I'm in that position.
> >I haven't heard anyone dispute the former -- only the latter. Why are you
> >linking the two issues?
>
> Granted, they are separate but related issues. Ceki
>
Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
