Re: [Paperclips-discuss] Paperclips Bugs

[Steven J. Owens]

> >>> Steven J. Owens <address@hidden> 25-Jun-01 7:04:41 PM >>>
> 
>      So should I move up to HEAD as well?  
> 
> Probably.

     I'll play with it tonight.  Right now, the alpha release is
compiled and working, so I'll play with it.
 
>    paperclips makes cleanly (though it still complains 
>    about getopt).
> 
> What's the complaint? I don't get one.

     It complains "class Getopt is public, should be declared in a
file named Getopt.java" and the same for LongOpt. 
 
>      I've thought of different schemes for this - 
>      using two different repositories, branching 
>      and merging on a daily basis, etc.  
> 
> That would be very complicated.... 

     Yeah, which is why I haven't done anything on it yet.  I'm kinda
hoping the subversion guys will come up with something before I
finally get around to it...

> but with a hacked client it might work.

     Well, I like the simplicity of the tags approach, but I realized
a gotcha; CVS won't let you commit over newer code, so if developer A
commits an in-progress during the day, when developer B goes to try
it, he'll get conflicts.  I can think of ways to fix this, but then
you have the problem of trying to get the rollback, etc.  Hm.  On
second thought I'm beginning to think a either a painless branch/merge
client or local repositories make more sense.
 
> However, if I just manage my repository a bit better this shouldn't
> be a problem /8->

     Yeah, but I still want in-progress commits.  Every now and then I
get to a point where I realize I've gone down a dead-end and I'd
really like to go back to where I was an hour ago...

Steven J. Owens
address@hidden