Re: CVS priority standard?
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 05:42:15PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 11-Mar-2002 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > I've got a bug filed against CVS: 78336, which asks for CVS have it's
> > priority be raised to standard.
> >
> > What does people think about this? AJ? Too late for the freeze (CVS
> > is already frozen, since it's part of tasks)?
>
> what REAL reason do we have for placing a tool for development in standard? I
> am more inclined to see rcs moved to optional as well.
I dunno, I've always found it a good practice (and people I've worked
with since I started in the business have agreed) to keep most config
files under RCS control in general; RCS is not restricted to being a
'tool for development' any more than vi is.
RCS is one of those things clueful people tend to expect to be there
when they log in to work on a random UNIX system, and I don't think it
would look good for it not to be there without the installer having
specifically asked for it.
Personal opinion, I guess.
(I've seen CVS used in the same way, but that's a lot more complicated
and it tends to only be diehard CVS-heads who do that kind of thing)
--
Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie,
http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die.
Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_
Reply to: