CVS has *nothing* to do with releases (was: App duplication again)

[Andreas Pour]

Neil Stevens wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Monday May 06, 2002 05:34, Rob Kaper wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 02:06:40PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > > Some times I get the impression that the only reason some
> > > > applications are put into CVS are for the convenience of developers
> > > > that grew too lazy to download a tarball.
> > >
> > > Wow.  If this is your impression you are absolutely right.  CVS indeed
> > > is a tool for developers.  If you think, that it's wrong to use CVS
> > > for what it was designed for, you are severely misguided.
> >
> > No, but *I* think some applications are included because some developers
> > are too lazy to *release* and *market* a tarball.
> 
> So what if they are?  It's not enough that the app was written?  When
> applications are included in that case, it's the *users* who benefit, far
> more than the developer.

That depends.  If the result is GUI fragmentation, lower-quality
applications and increased user learning curves, quite the opposite
would be true.  More !== better.

And as has been pointed out, there are people - the translators,
artists, packagers - who also do not benefit.  It's not like the world
stops when code is dumped in CVS.  There are lots of people for whom
work is created each time an app is added.

At least to me, these people matter too :-).

Ciao,

Dre