Re: refactoring when using CVS

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 08:28:16 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
>
> Since bare-bones CVS pretty much forces you to tag (ie
> branch) all files in the module, either it's a slug
> when it comes to large code bases, or you're forced to
> create a wrapper to manage branches for only parts of
> the module.

Would you consider a *BSD kernel to be a "large code base"?

I was going to tell you how many total lines of code there are, but it
fails the simple one-liner on both NetBSD and even FreeBSD with far
fewer architectures:

        $ wc -l $(find . \( -name CVS -prune \) -o -type f -print)     
        ksh: wc: Argument list too long

The NetBSD folks don't go wild with private developer branches, but
they are in regular use.

> Personally, I would opt for task branches over
> developer branches since then, there'd be a very good
> mapping between the branch and a change set and
> multiple developers could work on the same branch.

Hmmm.... yes, well in NetBSD the "private" branches really are "task
oriented", but one developer is normally in charge of each.

> Still, there's the problem of possible multiple
> refactorings having to be merged.

Huh?  Do you mena "possible multiple file renames"?

Refactoring (at any level) does not _require_ renaming files!!!!

> And how likely do you think a geographically disperse
> team is doing paired programming.

That's a meaningless (implied) question.

>  My guess is if the
> team is large enough, there's bound to be a pair out
> there doing this, but as a whole, I wouldn't say the
> entire team is doing it.

Indeed, but who cares?  You don't know how any given person with commit
access has managed to write the code being committed.  XP effectively
requires only one person to be at the keyboard so the answer is
unknowable.

Now except for the "Fix XP when it breaks" rule there's the other rule
about changing the pairing frequently....  ;-)

>  And if the entire team isn't
> doing it, and they're using CVS, then it's irrelevant
> to this discussion.

Why?  What difference does it make how many members of the team do XP?

If even one pair do so then CVS is involved -- more-so even than if all
members of the team are doing XP!

> So let's say that there is a pair out there doing XP. 
> How easy do you think it is to reintegrate their
> refactoring changes in light of the fact that other
> development has been going on?

Refactoring at the design level does not require file renaming!!!!

(and in any case it's irrelevant -- its no easier or harder than if
someone does an implemntation level refactoring that results in some
file renames without doing XP)

> I think you seem to think most real-world projects
> reflect the same needs as that of *BSD.

They are very good examples of large and diverse projects that are using
CVS very successfully in a very public (and thus measurable) way.

>  This leads me
> to the question, when was the last time you've worked
> in a corporate environment and how long did it last? 
> I don't mean this question to be insulting, it's just
> that you have a completely different mind-set from
> many other people on this list and I would like to
> understand it better.

My answer is irrelevant.

-- 
                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>