Cees,
Your proposal sounds very interesting. I can't promise that we'll use
it, but I'll certainly take a good look. I like your idea.
Thanks!
--Avi
p.s. You may also want to keep in mind as you develop it that the web
is becoming one of the main interfaces for both users and
administrators. It might not be a bad idea to design your interface in
a way which will allow you or others to add web capability later on.
Cees de Groot wrote:
>
> We just closed an evaluation of source management systems, and the good
> news is that we are sticking with CVS, Rational ClearCase lost the race. One
> thing we learnt, though, from talking and reading is that a lot of ClearCase
> customers take the time to define a process around the product, supported
> by shell-scripts, triggers, and whatnot. We feel that we want to do the
> same to CVS, so I am currently busy writing a shell around CVS (in Python)
> that offers an activity-based interface to the repository. The user typically
> won't say "I want to create a branch", but rather "I want to start working
> on bugfix xyz" - the shell will take care of branching, deciding when and
> what to merge, etcetera. I'm also planning a close integration with the
> bug tracking system we use, Bugzilla (so that a developer can click a button
> "Start work on this bug", which results in creating a branch etcetera).
>
> I'll be selling this internally as an ideal candidate for an open source
> solution - after a bit of initial hacking, I'd like to drop the stuff on
> SourceForge under a BSD or GNU license. Now I cannot promise that I'll be
> able to pull this through, but it would help me if there would be lots
> of interest to actually use this stuff in the CVS community. Would
> people consider/like to/love to switch to a more process-based shell
> around CVS? Or is the general feeling that this sort of stuff ain't
> necessary?
--
========= Avi Green :) (: www.sputnik7.com =========
======== Unix S/A & System Specialist ========
======== avi at sputnik7.com 212 217-1147 ========
