Subject: Re: Third party source [was re: airport codes.]
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/25/2000 12:33:03
> However cvs isn't required for "self hosting".
> The compiler, sure. CVS?? That's just there for people doing direct development
> and I agree shouldn't be in the tree.
I think I agree, and if it's not neither should RCS be in the tree for
the same reasons I'd say. If RCS should be, then I think CVS should
be because, as far as I'm concerned, it's the extension that makes RCS
truly useful. 8-)
I find CVS insanely useful for lots of non-development uses, btw.
I use it to manage my dot files, I use it to manage web sites, I've
used it to manage /etc (it's not so great at this, at least with the
versions of our /etc contents that i've tried 8-), I use it to manage
random collections of todo lists, etc.
It's not just a development tool, it's a way of life. But that
doesn't mean it should be in the source tree. (wow, that almost
sounds like a comment some people might make about emacs... 8-)