On Tue, 27 May 2003 11:39:22 -0700 Steve deRosier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's it. Don't think too hard on it. As is typical with Linux and > other UNIX systems, CVS is a simple tool meant to do one simple job and > nothing else. CVS versions files. If you want to do more, add more > tools into the mix You know, that does paint a rosier, and fairer picture. I believe in the usefulness of using the pipe on the command line, and this does seem analogous. Thanks! As for the perl wrappers, yeah, I had gone as far in my thinking as you did in your note. The hangups start when considering how to determine at checkin time which of the n hard links will become a file actually stored in CVS, and how to track the other hard links to be sure they are updated upon checkout. I suppose that's doable also, but... how much hacking and wrapping is too much? I guess that's another tradeoff. Piping "this to that to the other" on my own personal command line is one thing, but this will be an scm system to be used by one and all. Some in my department are known to be set in their ways, and complexity is anathema. When I began looking into CVS, the complexity of the tagging/branching syntax was almost enough to make it a non-contendor for our users. I'll keep looking for now. Thanks again for your fair(er) thoughts on CVS. Phil _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
