Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
Kenny Tilton writes:
Just to be clear, the "No CVS" rule relates to avoiding the bleeding edge, not anything to with CVS per se, yes? Or is it that the CVS stuff is not packaged as thoughtfully to build right out of the box?
Right -- depending on the project, the source in CVS can be almost guaranteed to be broken. That's just an issue with using the development branch.
Lawdy, where I come from that is grounds for a firing squad. By which I mean, the group's source code repository is what everyone works against, so lord help you if you commit broken code.
OTOH, the config/make stuff I guess is precisely the kind of thing I can see falling through the cracks since developers will have stable build environments in place and would not be using the CVS config/make stuff.
I guess my question is, did anyone see me making a mistake in how I was trying to build? For example, should there have been a file called "configure" (no extension)? Or was I supposed to make one with autoconf? Or...
I ask because it has occurred to me that CVS neatly solves the problem of my jumping around between win32 and Linux: if I pull source down onto my Linux box and hack it to make it work over there, then I just commit and do an update on my win32 box and make sure everything still works there. If not, another iteration and all should be OK, off to OS X to conquer another platform.
Sound right?
That's how it's supposed to work. You could have more useful comments to your commits ....
I'll do my best once I get a solid base of cvs code. Unfortunately nothing is safe when I take up a keyboard (ie, I refactor /a lot/), so by the time I get everything working again, nothing else does.
kt