[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Build management (was: major design changes...can we)

From: Alan Langford <jal_at_ambitonline.com>
Date: 2002-05-21 15:22:54 CEST

At 2002/05/21 09:54 +0300, Marc Girod wrote:
>I believe nobody should care for yet another RCS. However smart.

If the architecture crafted sufficiently well, should it not be possible to
provide a layer that provides a "filesystem front-end" interface to
Subversion? Then someone who wants to craft a ClearCase calibre build
system on top of that is free to do so.

Either way, a good, robust and complete version management system is an
essential component of a much wider variety of downstream applications.
Tightly integrated build management isn't all that useful if you're trying
to get control of a sales team's proliferation of PowerPoint presentations.
Most of the interface to a friendly sales-document management system will
be useless for build management. But if both of those systems run off a
single version control technology, it's a huge win for the people who have
to maintain and support them.

Subversion's mission, as I see it, is to fix the things that are wrong with
(or even irritating about) CVS (which implies some additional
functionality). Period. End. Anyone on this list probably agrees that's a
big enough job as it is. The open development process makes the odds that
Subversion will be structured so that it's useful as a base for more
sophisticated tools (after all, if it isn't, then just restructure it so it
is ;) ). If you want a killer build management tool with a robust, widely
supported back end, start designing.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 21 15:25:58 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.