On 18 Oct 2005, at 19:44, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Is the desire for such a tool prevalent enough to translate into a
working tool?
Well due to the lack of stack granularity in my work - it is a
little hard to share right now - but the tools were actually built a
couple of years ago. Right
On 17 Oct 2005, at 08:36, Mark Wieder wrote:
Richard-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 8:27:55 PM, you wrote:
Can you tell us a bit more about projects you've worked on where
multiple team members needed to work on different controls in the
same
window at the same time?
First Scenario
The
david bovill wrote:
The most obvious example for me is at the handler level.
You make a strong argument for handler-level granularity for your
workflow, but I believe that goes beyond what CVS was designed to handle.
As I understand it CVS is document-based, and source files often include
Richard-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 8:27:55 PM, you wrote:
Can you tell us a bit more about projects you've worked on where
multiple team members needed to work on different controls in the same
window at the same time?
Sure, but that may be missing the point a bit.
The problem is that
Chipp-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 8:07:16 PM, you wrote:
Also, interesting enough, the Filemaker community has picked up on
MagicCarpet and are now starting to use it for their version control as
well.
Cool. And that makes sense, now that FileMaker 7 finally allows
separate files instead of
Mark
I'd rather build the same level of ease of FMP into Rev than the opposite
(which is unlikely to happen)...
MS Access is more flexible in this way... alas...
cheers
-=-
Xavier Bury
Clearstream Services
TNS NT LAN Server
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
On 10/16/05 11:45 PM, Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cool. And that makes sense, now that FileMaker 7 finally allows
separate files instead of the monolithic structure it's always had.
Now if we could just get FileMaker to adopt xTalk to give it a *real*
programming language...
xavier-
Monday, October 17, 2005, 12:09:22 AM, you wrote:
I'd rather build the same level of ease of FMP into Rev than the opposite
(which is unlikely to happen)...
Yes, but why reinvent things? Ideally I'd like to see them each do
what they do best.
MS Access is more flexible in this
Todd-
Monday, October 17, 2005, 8:11:50 AM, you wrote:
Actually FileMaker 7 (and now FileMaker 8) encourages development in less
files then before.
My bad. Typing without thinking again. You're right, of course. And
the data/interface separation is definitely a Good Thing.
--
-Mark Wieder
Maybe a good place to start with an open source community project
would be
for to build a RevCVS.
Am I crazy or what?
Not unless I am :) I used for a year of so CVS built into the
Metacard environment I wrote. All script suites were exported into
CVS, and individual handlers documented
On 10/15/05 3:40 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can solve little things like moving around files and integrating
them into the master build as you go.
That stuff is easy.
The hard part is retaining and utilizing human energy.
I think this is exactly why some type of CVS
Todd Geist wrote:
On 10/15/05 3:40 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can solve little things like moving around files and integrating
them into the master build as you go.
That stuff is easy.
The hard part is retaining and utilizing human energy.
I think this is exactly why
david-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 6:47:08 AM, you wrote:
CVS does not handle binaries so well, so to keep track with the open
CVS actually handles binaries *very* poorly, usually resulting in file
corruption, in my experience. CVS was explicitly written to deal with
text files, and the binary
On 16 Oct 2005, at 20:06, Mark Wieder wrote:
Funny, I just started down the road of moving my rev version control
over to subversion, too. But I'd happily give that up if you can get
this running in the next month or so.
So your offering to help :)
On 16 Oct 2005, at 20:06, Richard Gaskin
david bovill wrote:
So why not go with the flow - horses for courses? Is there a way of
combining Magic Carpet with the interest to develop an SVN / CVS
integration into the Rev environment?
One man's flow is another man's impedence. ;)
If others like CVS then there's nothing stopping them
Richard-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 12:40:59 PM, you wrote:
One man's flow is another man's impedence. ;)
LOL
For myself, I think Magic Carpet got it right for the sorts of workflows
I find myself involved in: it's stack-based rather than script- or
object-based, and in the projects I
Richard-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 10:55:59 AM, you wrote:
Magic Carpet's been around for a while, and many of us have written
...and it's about time someone posted the url...
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit2/MagicCarpetCover/default.htm
--
-Mark Wieder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 10:55:59 AM, you wrote:
Magic Carpet's been around for a while, and many of us have written
...and it's about time someone posted the url...
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit2/MagicCarpetCover/default.htm
--
-Mark Wieder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 10:55:59 AM, you wrote:
Magic Carpet's been around for a while, and many of us have written
...and it's about time someone posted the url...
http://www.altuit.com/webs/altuit2/MagicCarpetCover/default.htm
--
-Mark Wieder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark and Richard,
Thanks for the kind words about MagicCarpet. I agree, it's not
everything for everybody, but it is used by a lot of Rev'ers to help
manage their code.
Also, little known about MagicCarpet is it's ability to automate
updating of applications via the MGC SplashScreen app.
Mark Wieder wrote:
What I'm interested in, though, is opening up a path to a more
granular approach to rev development. If you don't need to get more
atomic than one stack-one developer then you're home free. But if
you've got complex projects and need to have developers check out an
object from
Richard,
I agree, but like you, I tend to work alone, or with 1 other programmer.
One of the things I really like about Rev, is the longer you program
with it, the more it reveals itself as a fundamentally sound architecture.
Case in point. The reason I developed MagicCarpet initially was
On 15 Oct 2005, at 04:03, Alex Tweedly wrote:
It may be (puts on 'optimist' hat) that Rev is so much more
productive that an individual can do so much more
or it may be (puts on 'pessimist' hat) that the lack of a RCS /
CVS / subversion equivalent makes multi-developer efforts so much
On 10/14/05 7:03 PM, Alex Tweedly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the lack of a RCS / CVS /
subversion equivalent makes multi-developer efforts so much harder in
Rev than in other languages that it just hasn't happened.
I don't know much about CVS, so I am going to ask the dumb question.
Why can't
Xavier
http://monsieurx.com/taoo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Todd Geist
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 6:43 PM
To: use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Open source collaboration [WAS: Re: Rev vs.
AJAX... Ajax vs TAOO
Alex Tweedly wrote:
I think it's an interesting characteristic of Rev - there is a huge
amount freely given open source Rev stacks.
But, as far as I know, there have been few examples of successful,
completed *collaborative* open source developments in Rev.
The MetaCard IDE has been
26 matches
Mail list logo
