Re: CVS is your friend

Klaus Guenther wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Lukas Smith" <smith@backendmedia.com>

So to conclude I think it has been established that the current way is cumbersome for a valid development approach (sorry I don't understand the don't develop in CVS dir argument at all and I have a hard time taking

this

seriously since all people that through it out proclaimed it like a religious message without any reasoning what so ever) and some of the solutions suggested obviously don't work for certain developer needs.

Absolutely! I agree that it would be nice to have it convienient for everyone :-) It would be nice not to have to install a package to test it. A simple checkout from cvs would suffice...

I disagree - it's so incredibly simple to install and then uninstall, which is much less simple than downloading, making sure it is in the include path, including it, and then possibly deleting it if you don't need it. I always install packages to test them. Basically, I have another window open where I have once typed: "pear install --force package.xml" in the directory that contains the package.xml. Then, when I make changes, I hit up-arrow <enter> in that window. It's not exactly difficult :). Plus, I can be sure that it will work when people pear install it - something that you can't be sure of if you forget to test this on a release. Then, if I want to use another set, I just pear uninstall Packagename. This is the primary advantage of PEAR over CVS - you can use CVS to keep track of the "source" but you can create a workable snapshot with the package.xml and install/upgrade features of PEAR - something CVS will never match (and is not intended to match). For those who operate in a single-window installation, creation of a shell script that contains something like: #!/bin/sh pear install --force $1/package.xml would work nicely. devinstall /path/to/package Greg