Hi all!
jennyw jennyw@dangerousideas.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:13:29AM +0200, Stephane Ducasse wrote:
ideally we would like to have a place where all the changes can be versioned at once so we thought of using cvs, but we want that other can contribute so is source forge easy to use, adequate for this project? For supporting external reviewing process we could generate a web page from the files in the cvs. I think that we should have real tools if we want to move fast.
I don't yet know anything about source management in Squeak (not sure what this DVS thing is yet), but some complex projects, like the Linux kernel, are hosted by BitMover (using BitKeeper) rather than Sourceforge. Partly this is because of BitKeeper's superior merging and other facilities (over CVS).
Yep. Well, Squeak doesn't "play" that well with filebased source management tools. In Squeak we now have DVS which essentially is a "smart" file-in/file-out mechanism which makes it at least practical to use CVS or any other filebased source management tool - but it is still not a perfect fit and will probably never be.
DVS can also be used "by itself" to produce fileouts that can contain both classes and so called "loose methods" and does the "right thing" when a new version is filed-in on top of an old.
So in short - in Squeak you definitely should look at DVS. We all should. :-) As a matter of fact I am moving over to DVS to manage the SqueakMap code itself.
There is also something called Monticello: http://map2.squeakfoundation.org/sm/packagebyname/monticello
Which Avi and the guys started implementing at last OOPSLA. I hope they pick it up again! :-)
regards, Göran