Re: CVS is your friend

On 16 Nov 2003 at 17:08, Greg Beaver wrote: > 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. [...] Greg, I want to thank you for that comment. Although it seems to be a bit overhead I see the benefit you're pointing at by installing always from the current package.xml and keeping this in CVS also. Seems like a nice solution. One of the best thougts on this "no, we don't need a new structure"-discussion I've recently read. Thank you, Stefan PS: Sometimes the solution is too near :-))