Richard and the others,
I'd like to say that this sort of discussion discourage both Richard,
me, Jerzy, Greg and everybody who is welling to spread cvs.
I'm personnaly stoned by the number of people who turned to cvs due to
the efforts of projects like MacCvsPro, WinCvs, jcvs and others (I
noticed that according to the mail box of WinCvs.org and the stats on
the pages). Just make some querys on the web, you'll see. It is just
fair to begin to think a little bit like the regular Windows-Web users
who turns to cvs : they want some high level stuff.
On the other hand, I don't want to discourage the old contributors like
Greg, because they worked a lot to make cvs work and we still need great
volume of work on cvs. But it has to exist a middle position which
allows everybody in the cvs community to take advantage of new
developments, capabilities... a much faster way than that we can see
now.
I'd like to blame someone, but I could blame me as well. None of us guy
has the time to do the job that Jim was doing on the list. And may be
one person is not enough. We lack some tools like bugzilla, a TODO, some
develpments archives, some exp. branches, a proper make mechanism (cvs
is not using automake at all...) and a good web site for cvs !!!
I'd like to see some discussions in this direction before we can get to
the real stuff. If there is a fork to do, that's on the web pages. A
good web site for cvs. This would help messy people like me to think
twice before asking to add new buttons ;-)
Regards,
Sorry for the English,
ale.x
Richard Wesley wrote:
>
> >[ On Friday, February 18, 2000 at 17:38:32 (CST), Win32 M$ wrote: ]
> >> Subject: About buttons....
> >>
> >> There is few more, but I think that will make the point. So, in fact, the
> >> tool user would rather setup the options he wants to use, and he can forget
> >> about all the troubles with Ver. Cntrl. The different approach is for the
> >> tool maker - his job is to make a tool smart enought to do the right things
> >> when the button is pressed. We are a tool makers in this forum, and we
> >> should have some concern for the "users". We (toolmakers) know the mechanics
> >> behind the tool, and we can use it even if it's broken or
> >> difficult/complicated. But we should take care to make a life for the
> >> "users" easier.
> >
> >Hmm.... perhaps you should take a long hard look at some other tools,
> >such as Aegis and perhaps some commercial or semi-commercial tools too.
> >
> >> My point is that tools users will use the tools in a "smart" way, not the
> >> "hard" way. Hard way is in use only in the special/emergency cases. It's a
> >> shame that CVS is not integrating via SCC API or COM. There in an attempt to
> >> do that thought, but so far it is stuck.
> >
> >You're in the wrong universe. There are no such APIs here.
>
> Stuff and nonsense.
>
> For starters, .cvsrc allows you to customize the behavior of the cvs
> commands under *nix so that they have the desired default behavior.
>
> Beyond that, there are a number of open source graphical front ends
> to cvs, including WinCVS, jCVS, WebCVS, MacCVS, MacCVS Client and
> MacCVS Pro. WinCVS, MacCVS Pro and MacCVS have integration of the
> type described into the CodeWarrior environment under both Windows
> and Macintosh.
>
> I wrote the aforementioned MacCVS integration tool and I read this
> list, so please don't presume to speak for me when you make
> statements like "There are no such APIs here." There are such APIs
> here provided by folks who are more interested in promoting cvs than
> worshipping it. I also know for a fact that Alex Paterneau (WinCVS)
> and Alberto Barbati (abCVS) read this list. The post you just
> harshed on even mentions the effort to integrate cvs into MS
> Developer Studio, which is discussed on this list from time to time.
>
> If you can't say something useful, just shut up. And if you can't
> shut up, at least have the decency to only speak for yourself and not
> the entire community.
