Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> * Kate Ebneter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000215 19:58] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <Stuff from Karl Fogel snipped>
> >
<BIG SNIP for brevity>
> >
> > I don't understand the motives of those who attack Greg without really
> > understanding what he's saying, and while I understand the motives of
> > the second group, they're responsible, IMHO, for the
> > deterioration/degradation/call it what you will of this list into a more
> > or less constant flamefest.
> >
> > Personally, I instinctively distrust anyone who says "steps should be
> > taken..." There ARE no "official" CVS developers. As Karl points out,
> > there's a commonly accepted version of the source, at cyclic.com, that
> > has been the de facto "CVS" for a while now, but NO ONE is stopping
> > ANYONE from forking the source and making a better version of it.
>
> And how do patches make it into the "de facto" CVS tarball? Is it some
> magical process where they pile up on cyclic's doorstep until magically
> they are put into the distribution?
You'll have to ask Cyclic that.
> Forking a _working_ version of CVS would just be too resource
> intensive for most companies.
Really? We forked a working version of gcc. We haven't forked CVS
because we haven't needed to, but we would if we did.
> > > Basically, if this is the official CVS list, then a real developer
> > > presense is nessesary, maybe not to answer questions, but to make
> > > sure that people have the right kind of idea about your project.
> >
> > There's nothing "official" about CVS. It's open source, get it?
> > Moreover, it's not like Perl, where Larry Wall has the final say about
> > what happens to it; only the end users, ultimately, have the final say.
>
> Apparantly you're completely confused about this issue, numerous patches
> have been brought forward to address things that are broken in CVS
> which don't seem to get a second look once Greg gets a chance to point
> out that it fixes something he's opposed to actually working.
I'm not confused; on the contrary, some of these patches are misguided.
Some might be useful. Some are useful to some people, some are useful
for everyone. Your definition of what's "broken" in CVS is obviously not
the same as mine. Or Greg's.
> There's at least five people a week asking for locking.
...and an equal number of people saying that the locking they're asking
for is INCOMPATIBLE with the design goals of CVS!
> This project is not driven by the community, it's quite obviously
> driven by the ego^H^H^Hphilosophy of one man.
>
> Fine! Bend to his will, but at least axe the broken code out of the
> distribution!
>
> Don't leave it there as a tempting thing to fix for some young
> developer just to have Greg ram his philosophy down the poor kid's
> throat when he finally musters the courage to submit patches.
This is absurd. Greg may very well be the most vocal about these things
but he's hardly the only one, and he most certainly DOES NOT control CVS
except at his own site.
<snip>
> > Minor rant: I'm tired of hearing, on this list, about how CVS is broken
> > because it doesn't support locks, or because it doesn't support symlinks
> > properly, or... SYMLINKS??? Symlinks have no place in a serious build
> > environment unless they're created on the fly -- they're not portable,
> > for one thing, and, well, I could go on, but I won't. And as for
> > locking, I'm sorry, but what part of CONCURRENT Versioning System don't
> > people understand??? If y'all wanna turn it into Control Via
> > Synchronization, well, could you please do it to another source code
> > control system? Please? There are TONS of very good source code
> > control/versioning systems using synchronization via locking. There are
> > very few that permit or properly support CONCURRENT development, let
> > alone make it the center of the development model. I _NEED_ CVS to be a
> > CONCURRENT versioning system. I don't need locks, I don't need symlinks,
> > and I certainly don't need 100+ emails a day telling me that Greg Woods
> > is a jerk...
>
> blah blah blah, look, you don't really get it do you?
>
> If symlinks and locking is so terrible then for christ's sake
> RIP IT OUT OF THE CODE!!!
>
> I personally don't give a hoot what you use CVS for...
That's very clear. It's also very clear that you don't understand why
symlinks in a version control system are a really bad idea, and that you
don't understand the model of development that CVS is intended to support.
<rant snipped for space>
> Now that's to the best of my recollection, it may not have been
> exactly airplane glue he proposed, but I don't have my email archived
> from that far back.
>
> At this point I really don't care all that much, I unsubscribed
> sometime after sending that intial email, CVS is going to continue
> to be broken and I'm tired of watching this depressing show.
No. CVS is _not_ broken. You're trying to use a hammer to drive screws,
and you're complaining when the maintainers of the hammer point out that
instead of changind the hammer into a screwdriver, perhaps you should
use a screwdriver. And, oh, by the way, that tack you're trying to
drive, too, should probably not be there at all (the symlinks). Look, I
don't know the specific problem that you're trying to deal with in
detail. If I did, perhaps I could help you find a source code control
system that was suited to your needs.
Kate Ebneter
Build Engineer and Rabbit Wrangler
DataRover Mobile Systems, Inc.
