Tx Grigore Grigore Dolghin wrote: > I'm located in Romania - GMT+2. > > I guess others have made clear their point: while is it possible to have > only one big fat VCX, that will force you to use some third-party tools to > do the merge operation. Try doing your best explaining your boss why is > better to have multiple smaller vcx-es. > > There is one question nobody asked: how many people will actually do the > development? I'm thinking maybe your boss just wants to have a history of > changes (and he doesn't do any development by himself) and you're the only > one which actually writes code. In this case you won't have to merge > anything, so the CVS+1 big VCX would work pretty well.
I explained in my reply to Mike why the VCX has to remain monolithic ... We are both actively developing - and he does at least realise that we are going to have to use something like scX or TwoFox Paul Newton _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
