GNU Info
(cvs.info)What is CVS not?
What is CVS not?
================
CVS can do a lot of things for you, but it does not try to be
everything for everyone.
CVS is not a build system.
Though the structure of your repository and modules file interact
with your build system (e.g. `Makefile's), they are essentially
independent.
CVS does not dictate how you build anything. It merely stores
files for retrieval in a tree structure you devise.
CVS does not dictate how to use disk space in the checked out
working directories. If you write your `Makefile's or scripts in
every directory so they have to know the relative positions of
everything else, you wind up requiring the entire repository to be
checked out.
If you modularize your work, and construct a build system that
will share files (via links, mounts, `VPATH' in `Makefile's,
etc.), you can arrange your disk usage however you like.
But you have to remember that _any_ such system is a lot of work
to construct and maintain. CVS does not address the issues
involved.
Of course, you should place the tools created to support such a
build system (scripts, `Makefile's, etc) under CVS.
Figuring out what files need to be rebuilt when something changes
is, again, something to be handled outside the scope of CVS. One
traditional approach is to use `make' for building, and use some
automated tool for generating the dependencies which `make' uses.
See Note: Builds, for more information on doing builds in
conjunction with CVS.
CVS is not a substitute for management.
Your managers and project leaders are expected to talk to you
frequently enough to make certain you are aware of schedules,
merge points, branch names and release dates. If they don't, CVS
can't help.
CVS is an instrument for making sources dance to your tune. But
you are the piper and the composer. No instrument plays itself or
writes its own music.
CVS is not a substitute for developer communication.
When faced with conflicts within a single file, most developers
manage to resolve them without too much effort. But a more
general definition of "conflict" includes problems too difficult
to solve without communication between developers.
CVS cannot determine when simultaneous changes within a single
file, or across a whole collection of files, will logically
conflict with one another. Its concept of a "conflict" is purely
textual, arising when two changes to the same base file are near
enough to spook the merge (i.e. `diff3') command.
CVS does not claim to help at all in figuring out non-textual or
distributed conflicts in program logic.
For example: Say you change the arguments to function `X' defined
in file `A'. At the same time, someone edits file `B', adding new
calls to function `X' using the old arguments. You are outside
the realm of CVS's competence.
Acquire the habit of reading specs and talking to your peers.
CVS does not have change control
Change control refers to a number of things. First of all it can
mean "bug-tracking", that is being able to keep a database of
reported bugs and the status of each one (is it fixed? in what
release? has the bug submitter agreed that it is fixed?). For
interfacing CVS to an external bug-tracking system, see the
`rcsinfo' and `verifymsg' files (Note: Administrative files).
Another aspect of change control is keeping track of the fact that
changes to several files were in fact changed together as one
logical change. If you check in several files in a single `cvs
commit' operation, CVS then forgets that those files were checked
in together, and the fact that they have the same log message is
the only thing tying them together. Keeping a GNU style
`ChangeLog' can help somewhat.
Another aspect of change control, in some systems, is the ability
to keep track of the status of each change. Some changes have
been written by a developer, others have been reviewed by a second
developer, and so on. Generally, the way to do this with CVS is to
generate a diff (using `cvs diff' or `diff') and email it to
someone who can then apply it using the `patch' utility. This is
very flexible, but depends on mechanisms outside CVS to make sure
nothing falls through the cracks.
CVS is not an automated testing program
It should be possible to enforce mandatory use of a testsuite
using the `commitinfo' file. I haven't heard a lot about projects
trying to do that or whether there are subtle gotchas, however.
CVS does not have a builtin process model
Some systems provide ways to ensure that changes or releases go
through various steps, with various approvals as needed.
Generally, one can accomplish this with CVS but it might be a
little more work. In some cases you'll want to use the
`commitinfo', `loginfo', `rcsinfo', or `verifymsg' files, to
require that certain steps be performed before cvs will allow a
checkin. Also consider whether features such as branches and tags
can be used to perform tasks such as doing work in a development
tree and then merging certain changes over to a stable tree only
once they have been proven.
automatically generated by info2www version 1.2.2.9