You got my vote, definitely.
Joerg
>>>>> "Cees" == Cees de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Cees> We just closed an evaluation of source management systems, and the good
Cees> news is that we are sticking with CVS, Rational ClearCase lost the race. One
Cees> thing we learnt, though, from talking and reading is that a lot of ClearCase
Cees> customers take the time to define a process around the product, supported
Cees> by shell-scripts, triggers, and whatnot. We feel that we want to do the
Cees> same to CVS, so I am currently busy writing a shell around CVS (in Python)
Cees> that offers an activity-based interface to the repository. The user typically
Cees> won't say "I want to create a branch", but rather "I want to start working
Cees> on bugfix xyz" - the shell will take care of branching, deciding when and
Cees> what to merge, etcetera. I'm also planning a close integration with the
Cees> bug tracking system we use, Bugzilla (so that a developer can click a button
Cees> "Start work on this bug", which results in creating a branch etcetera).
Cees> I'll be selling this internally as an ideal candidate for an open source
Cees> solution - after a bit of initial hacking, I'd like to drop the stuff on
Cees> SourceForge under a BSD or GNU license. Now I cannot promise that I'll be
Cees> able to pull this through, but it would help me if there would be lots
Cees> of interest to actually use this stuff in the CVS community. Would
Cees> people consider/like to/love to switch to a more process-based shell
Cees> around CVS? Or is the general feeling that this sort of stuff ain't
Cees> necessary?
Cees> --
Cees> Cees de Groot http://www.cdegroot.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cees> GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD 1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
Cees> Forge your CipherSaber and list it: http://www.xs4all.nl/~cg/ciphersaber/
