[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (FC-Devel) Further OCD comments regarding CVS

> Ok, let me explain further.  Repository access should now be necessary if
> you're not going to use version management functions (I'll add this to the
> document).  As soon as you're going to use some multiuser or version
> features you *shall* need the single repository to be able to synchronize
> with something.


> CMM> In this case CVS would be the best solution.  I was confused by Sami's
> CMM> OO-layer over CVS bit which you agreed with.  But now I think our ideas
> CMM> are very similar ie. CVS repository + CORBA interfaces + tools (CORBA
> CMM> 3-tier client server architecture!).  My only extension is optional
> CMM> nature of CVS repository to reduce burden on projects which do not merit
> CMM> the overhead.
> I think it would help us to agree fully with each other if we will
> substitute every use of 'CVS' with 'version management tool', won't it?

Yes.  Excuse my looseness of terms; it's just easier to think in concrete

> You'll be working with your FreeCASE application, which will access
> FreeCASE Repository.  You shouldn't even know that there is CM repository
> somewhere.  The exact choise of CM tool will be made by FreeCASE Rep
> admin.  Some common cases (like CVS repository) could be prepackaged.
> Agreed?

Yes 100%.  This is the outcome I was hoping for. :)

Chris Moore