> We don't need to put everything into CVS right away, but the way several > people are editing the same files right now is dangerous. Somewhat, at least it makes life interesting. <g> > > I'd rather not use CVS myself just for the website, when I mess up a > > single character I just ssh onto the webserver and use vi to change > > it. > > > > Also when something is being considered I like to test it / play with > > and update a page repeatedly while hitting the refresh button. > > You can still do that, you just do a cvs commit when you're done. >From the webserver? Because that wouldn't be too onerous (dialup is plently slow with plenty lag). > Ideally though, you'd only make changes in your private checkout, commit > when you're done and then bring the public site up to date with cvs up > (which we might be able to automate somehow). Tie updating the website to the commit?
I don't see how that would work, I pretty much have to see it served up by the webserver to know when its right. > Of course. :) You're basically emulating parts of the functionality of > CVS with other tools. Well I'm not really opposed to this, so what exactly would this involve (getting it into CVS and then d/l'ing, updating, committing, etc)? I've thought about it a bit more and think that putting just /doc into CVS may be a good idea, the other files either don't change or are only changed by one person at a time / ever. cheers Liam ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and the chance of winning an Apple iPod: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
