[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What is the true use ?
From: |
Michael L. Hostbaek |
Subject: |
Re: What is the true use ? |
Date: |
23 Nov 2001 13:12:07 GMT |
User-agent: |
slrn/0.9.7.2 (FreeBSD) |
Michael Sims tried to tell us something, and all I got was:
> At 08:17 PM 11/22/2001 +0000, Michael L. Hostbaek wrote:
>
> ./htdocs/
> ./htdocs/index.html (a simple redirector to ./dgc)
> ./htdocs/myphpblog/
> ./htdocs/webpics/
> ./htdocs/dgc/
> ./htdocs/irma/
yeah, for ease. but it is not a funtionality issue.
>
> I don't version control the index.html redirector, since there is no
> need. I don't version control the dgc directory because it's a compiled
> CGI program I installed that I couldn't modify anyway. As you can see, all
> of the other directories have modules that are named the same as their
> directory names, with the exception of irma. The reason is that I also
> want to version control the "irma" directory in my apache includes dir:
Well, that all depends on your docroot layout. 40% of my site contents
is located in my index file. So it definently needs to go in CVS.
>
> If you don't version control the entire docroot tree then there won't BE
> any usage dir in the repository for them to commit to. If they switch to
> the usage dir and do a "cvs co" they'll get a "no CVS version here, do 'cvs
> co module' first" or something like that.
>
> I'm not sure because I've never used it, but I think you might be able to
> use "cvsignore" to have CVS ignore the mrtg and usage directories, if you
> still want to import the entire docroot as a single module.
>
hmm... hmmm.... /me ponders...
> CVS directories hanging around in the docroot don't really hurt anything,
> at least not in any way I am aware of. And since I don't version control
> the whole tree, the CVS dirs only exist in each subdirectory anyway...for
> example, I have:
I know, but it is not clean..
>
> There might be some disadvantage to doing checkouts directly into a
> production environment, but I'm not aware of them. It seems like exporting
> then copying is an unnecessary extra step that only makes things more
> difficult.
>
We can most certainly agree on that part. I am going to play around with
a Makefile, and see what I come up with. And if it is not saticfactory I
will most certainly use your layout..
> We'll get this communication thing figured out pretty soon... :)
hehe.. Thanks for your input.
--
Regards,
Michael L. Hostbaek
-= Thanks for all the fish.. =-
Re: What is the true use ?,
Michael L. Hostbaek <=
RE: What is the true use ?, Jerry Nairn, 2001/11/26
Re: What is the true use ?, Damian Wiest, 2001/11/26