John,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We felt the same way but once we went to CVS we never looked back and
can not imagine going with out source control. It may seem like the
web doesnt fit that paradigm but if you break your modules up properly
it works like a champ.
We broke out into 'html','components',
'Libs','external_tools','internal_tools','perlinstall'. This gave us
good control over each different area.
For our development team its more about consistency then versioning.
If you go all the way with it like we did you can give each developer
a sandbox that they work in and CVS merges for you, it is a huge
benefit. Its to the point now where you check out all the modules and
run one script. That script builds all the perl dependancies, rebuilds
your http daemon, rebuilds the proxies, configures the server for the
platform its on based on hostname and installs all the relevant files.
Every so often we bundle everything up into a tagged 'Release' and
send it on its way to production. This works really well. A case in
point was when we did our I18N conversion. We had one version of the
code that was being entirely hacked apart to accomodate our changes
but we still had to actively support bug fixes on the release. Without
CVS[insert favorite source system here] this would have been impossible.
Do you use CVS checkouts to upgrade the live system or do you this
manually. i.e. stop apache, tar and remove old code, untar new code,
start apache et voila?
So, without good CVS things like our I18N effort, our auto-install
systems etc would have not been possible or been a LOT more painful.
As it was we busted through it in record time.
John-
Ric.
