Thanks for the reply. I performed the search you mentioned and found the following message http://ccvs.cvshome.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=5846&listName=info ). However, that message also sugessts searching on "submit/assemble" which seems to imply I did not find the one you intended.
Anyway, the message I did find was also posted by you and I totally agreed with what you were saying. Especially: <differentiation between "checked-in code" and "code that is eligible for the build."> is exactly what we are trying to accomplish. I was tagged as the build script writer (we are using Ant which is a great java-based alternative to make); we have, as of yet, been unable to perform a successful build precisely because everyone is checking in code which does not compile with work of other developers. This is my first project using CVS (and actually the first for everyone on the team) and I was lucky enough to also be tagged as the CVS admin. So my experience here is extremely limited and the learning curve pretty steep. But after reading the docs, I had been leaning towards a single branch tagged as DEV on which all developers would perform their work. However, I have been starting to realize that branching is really just delaying the point at which these "inconsistencies" will be discovered, and then putting all the effort of correcting them on the release manager who is responsible for moving things from the branches to the trunck. However, I don't think I really liked the idea of tags to perform this step because it is either adding responsibilities back on the developers to tag their code which is ready for build release (which the idea alone of them making that decision scares me) or back onto the release manager to determine what is eligible for release to build. We are a team of 6 and the project is huge, so adding any substantial additional work to one person's plate could be detrimental. What was the jist of the "hand-off" process you were mentioning in the above archived message? Maybe we just need to add an additional role of "second-level" tester to 2-3 people's plates and have them determine whether things are ready for build and tag/merge things appropriately. "Paul Sander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Another approach that doesn't require developers to perform as many merges > is to implement a hand-off procedure that declares certain versions as > eligible for the build. This can be as simple as applying tags, or it could > be more complicated. That way, the developers and the builders can share > the same branch and yet still have some recourse if someone commits garbage. > > Check the info-cvs archives for "submit/assemble" for discussion of one > successful method that doesn't rely on tags. > > --- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > We are using CVS to store Java source code. Currently, all developers in > the project are directly commiting against HEAD. We would like (as much as > possible) to keep HEAD in a stable state and so would like to start using > branches to create a dev environment. > > Is this better approached by creating a single DEV branch or creating > seperate dev branches for each individual developer? What are people's > experiences with either approach? > > --- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
