RE: Newbie Questions

[Jim.Hyslop]

Rhino wrote:
> 1. Should I be using a "feature" version, a "stable" version, 
> or some other
> type of version? I'm okay with using code that might still 
> have *some* bugs
> in it but I don't want to use something that is virtually 
> untested and FULL
> of bugs so I'm not sure if 'feature' versions are for me.

The 1.12 feature branch is, from what I understand, quite robust and almost
ready to be promoted to "Stable". So, from what you've said, you should find
the feature version acceptable.

> 2. What is the latest appropriate version of CVS for my 
> platform (WinXP)?
1.12.11 is the most recent version available.

> I
> went to the downloads page,
> https://ccvs.cvshome.org/servlets/ProjectDocumentList, and expanded
> 'binaries' and 'win32' but virtually everything in that list 
> has a status of
> 'obsolete'; the only version of CVS in that list that isn't 
> obsolete is
> cvs-1-11-17, which seems a bit back level if I should be 
> using a 'feature'
> version since cvs-12-11 appears to exist, according to the home page.

cvs-1-12-11.zip is there - it's about half way down the page. Here's a
direct link:
https://ccvs.cvshome.org/files/documents/19/623/cvs-1-12-11.zip

> 3. This brings up a further question: should I even be using 
> a binary or
> should I be downloading and compiling something newer?
You'll need Microsoft Visual Studio to build it from source. CVS is written
in C.

> The CVS home page has a big warning about some kind of 
> security exposure and
> provides a link to the 'Original publication' which supposedly gives
> information that I can use to determine if my site is at 
> risk. Two questions
> about that:
> 1. Am I correct in assuming that the message on the home page 
> means that
> some versions of CVS which have been downloaded in the past might be a
> problem
Correct - the warning has been up for several months, and the attacks have
been fixed in the current versions.

> "There are two ways of constructing a software design. One 
> way is to make it
> so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the 
> other way is to
> make it so complicated that there are no obvious 
> deficiencies." - C.A.R. Hoare
So why does it seem most software these days is constructed the second way?
<sigh>

-- 
Jim Hyslop
Senior Software Designer
Leitch Technology International Inc. ( http://www.leitch.com )
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal ( http://www.cuj.com/experts )