version control and LIP

Seth Kurtzberg seth at
Mon Mar 15 01:15:46 EST 2004


I certainly agree with you about new things and using it because it is 
new or fancy.  I am working on a contract that is using Clearcase now, 
and they have made something simple into something incredibly complex.  
This choice was dictated by the customer (which is always a bad thing); 
the customer then proceeded to pay for an inadequate number of 
licenses.  I caught one of the people in my department with a 
clandestine CVS installation (really, I'm not making this up).  I had to 
make him disassemble it (which I'm also not making up).

The real question for something like Haskell, though, is this:  is the 
number of cases where CVS/subversion is inadequate significant enough to 
devote time to supporting alternatives.  I'm not convinced that the 
answer is yes, but I'm willing to listen to anyone who can make a case 
for it.


Sven Panne wrote:

> seth at wrote:
>> The reason (I believe) that you tend to get such a wide range of 
>> opinions in this area is that there is not a single common set of 
>> needs. [...]
> Very true. I'm not against anything new when it really solves a problem,
> but I'm strictly against something simply *because* it's new. People
> (including me :-) have a tendency to play around with new things, which
> is undoubtedly good to improve one's personal knowledge, but is quite bad
> when it comes to a production environment. I've seen quite a few baroque
> VC and build systems in companies which no one could understand as whole,
> because so many tools were involved when plain old CVS/make plus a little
> bit of sh could have done the jobs easily. So what I'm proposing is:
> "Keep it simple." And CVS *is* simple, we all use it daily...
> What I'd like to hear is the set of needs we have, and if we really agree
> on them. For my part, I'm quite happy with the development models 
> supported
> by CVS/Subversion, but there are surely other opinions. After we've 
> reached
> a conclusion on our needs and goals, we should look for a technical 
> solution,
> not the other way round.
> Cheers,
>    S.
> P.S. to Seth: Interesting domain in your email address, but I really 
> can't
> remember having you as an employee...  :-)
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at
> !DSPAM:4055642760317952451809!

More information about the Libraries mailing list