[cvsnt] Betr.: CVSNT to CVS
a.krey at gmx.de
Thu Apr 9 14:29:34 BST 2009
On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:53:05 +0000, Tony Hoyle wrote:
> Andreas Krey wrote:
> If you need to be able to reconstruct the *exact* build environment for
> an old revision, to fix a bug for a customer, then having the dependent
> libraries in there and possibly even the compilers is a normal thing to
Nowadays you should probably store the VMware image used for the
build and hope that the windows licencing doesn't fool you.
> If you're employed to work on a project how easy it is doesn't enter
> into it.
This sentence no verb? I meant, projects that do extensive storage
of binaries aren't exactly those you would casually take a peek into, let
alone via a slow, nonlocal link. Besides, it would really be interesting
to see how well git can compress multiple revisions of not-too-dissimilar
binaries. (The fact that most installers contain lots of compressed stuff
is rather detrimental here.)
> >noticing. It's not just the work but also that you don't immediately
> >appear in the global branch name space.
> Which means it isn't logged/audited, or backed up on the central server.
It isn't until you decide the stuff is worth of putting into the central.
Just like with regular commits. You could get lazy or clandestine, though.
More information about the cvsnt