[RFC] Workingstyle of different VCS systems

[Kuba Ober]

On Monday 09 April 2007, Matt Rogers wrote:
> On Monday 09 April 2007 14:41, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > Matt Rogers wrote:
> > > On a side note, can we please start calling it SCM (for Source Code
> > > Management) rather than VCS? We're not writing KDevelop to handle
> > > various versions of things, we're writing it to manage source code.
> >
> > ...but we are talking about integrating VCS's, not SCMS's. :-)
> >
> > To me VCS implies it can handle things that are not "source code" (like
> > .png's), which of course most if not all of the VCS's we're talking
> > about do (take a look at the commits on kde-artists if you don't believe
> > me ;-)). This, to me at least, conversely implies that a SCM System
> > (i.e. an SCM*S*) does something "more" than a VCS.
> >
> > You're welcome to try to change my mind. :-)
>
> .pngs are source code in some cases. While I generally agree that VCS and
> SCM are basically interchangable, KDevelop is meant for dealing with
> _source code_ rather than versions of things.

Yeah, but then you have things such as aegis where basically as a "mere 
mortal" the build (including "configure" and whatnot) is done by a single 
command: aegis -build, independently of how many targets, architectures and 
what not there might be. For something like a linux distribution, an 
aegis -build will leave you with a set of .isos and, for example, yum 
repository directories. I do actually host a miniature embedded distribution 
under my aegis, and it does just that, integrating all sorts of disparate 
things needed by various packages. Of course, *some* of it is only done 
during integration builds (.isos), so that it won't slow you down during 
development.

So, an SCM like aegis can control the whole process, from beginning to the 
end.

Cheers, Kuba