Well, I want to say thank you to all who posted regarding my query regarding dir
versioning. That was a heck of a discussion. My resulting perspective: CVS seems
innapropriate for our real world needs, preferring instead to serve a "purer"
versioning paradigm. (A paradigm which, by the way, seems too complex for me to
easily understand.)
To recap, I was looking for:
- the complete history and versioning of every individual file
- the ability to recreate dir structures, including hard and
symbolic links
These 2 things would have allowed me to checkout our whole ERP dir structure as of a
given date. Sweet!
Greg says to use the right tool for the right job. Well, I wish CVS were the right
tool, because the two "right tools" I've read about have real problems!
ClearCase:
ClearCase costs a lot of money. I mean a *lot* of money. Now, my organization might
pay for it, or they might not, I don't know. We are a University in the USA, so we do
have money. But I guarantee most of this world would never in a million years be able
to pay that sort of money. So while my org might get by, the rest of the world
suffers for the lack of an open source solution.
My own custom build tool, wrapped around CVS:
Gimme a break. It's taken our ERP vendor a decade (more?) to evolve their current ...
um... way of doing things. I'm pretty good at hacking and munging, but I am not
prepared to try and automate all of the linking and the recreation of the other
inconsistent results of their upgrade scripts upon CVS checkout. No, I need a tool
that can simply capture the *results* of their way of doing things and leave it at
that.
In conclusion, I know I have little choice but to follow Greg's advice. I'll use CVS
for my little perl modules, but I'll be sorry to report to my boss that CVS won't work
for our ERP versioning project.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
