> SourceForge projects aren't required to use CVS, and on single-man teams > like JPluck currently (and one of the projects I'm doing), CVS doesn't > make a whole lot of sense.
A few flaws in your assertion:
<snip>
3.) Enabling CVS is a single-button toggle for you in the SourcForge
interface, and doesn't in any way increase your management
resources of the project, as a lone-developer of it.
David, you can't tell Laurens or anyone else how much annoyance they will perceive; it's too personal an impact. I could tell you that doing something in a purely Microsoft environment is trivial; that wouldn't make you believe me. cvs adds multiple extra steps, especially as utilized on sourceforge. I use cvs daily on multiple platforms and am very aware of the setup and limitations involved.
4.) You're not encouraging other people to help developing on JPluck
if they can't see the source directly and check it out from CVS.
You didn't read the message header carefully. <grin> Anyhow, Laurens is indeed not encouraging multiple developers, and is very open about it. I've offered him help in the past and have been politely rebuffed; instead I supported his project with mine. Certainly use of cvs (on SourceForge) is a requirement for a multi-developer team, but I explicitly stated "single-man teams" in my message. Removing that from the context is creating a "straw man".
Your assertion that "CVS doesn't make a whole lot of sense" fails to include the countless thousands of users and developers who wish to see the metadata, diffs, changes, ChangeLog, and so on that is only contained within cvs itself. With a tarball of source, how can I see what changed and why?
No, David, it doesn't fail to take that into account. It takes it into account at a valuation. You aren't writing JPluck, nor any of my open-source projects (about half of which I have under cvs), nor do we report to you, so our decisions must be our own. The valuation I apply is this:
If the developer doesn't want to do something, he doesn't have to. This includes working on the project at all. It also includes putting it under cvs instead of investing a similar amount of time and annoyance (regardless of how much annoyance YOU think it would cause - it's his call, not yours) into new features or a better distribution package.
BTW, I asked you for source to the Perl plucker about ten months ago when it was still forming; seems to me you refused.
> The projects are required to release the source, but there's no
> requirement that they do it via CVS.
I'm well aware of what is required, but thanks for the reminder.
You're quite welcome. It's useful to review.
Having CVS available would prevent this problem, and remove your need to create tarballs of the source for download, since you can just tag the source in CVS, and point people there.
Which increases the load for programmers who don't use cvs at home, a group that probably significantly outnumbers programmers who do. There are definitely advantages to version control, and even to the way cvs on SourceForge is implemented, but there are costs also. And in some conditions the costs outweigh the benefits to the person who is making the decision, even though that may increase the cost and reduce the benefit to you.
But, as always, you are free to write a competitor to JPluck yourself and cvs it.
_______________________________________________ plucker-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
