Distributed equivalent to :Load Patches

[Mike McDonald]

>To: Mike McDonald <mikemac>
>Subject: Re: Distributed equivalent to :Load Patches
>From: marcus@cathcart.sysc.pdx.edu (Marcus G. Daniels)
>Date: 06 May 1997 12:48:05 -0700
>
>>>>>> "CWG" == Mike McDonald <mikemac@titian.engr.sgi.com> writes:
>
>CWG> it'd be nice if the source control system
>CWG> wasn't dependant on Unix or C. Lisp is the prefered
>CWG> dependancy. If we start out using CVS, we'll either have to
>CWG> switch to some other Lisp based system at a later date or
>CWG> implement a CVS compatible system in Lisp. In either case, why
>CWG> not just do it in Lisp to begin with?
>
>You seemed to be implying that a Lisp network-capable revision control
>program was needed in order to facilitate work.

  Not me! That was cwg who wanted that. I'm just as happy loading new
versions as loading patches.

>  An all new Lisp
>revision-control program is not a program in the critical path.

  I agree with that.

>In my opinion CVS already works pretty well.

  I can't comment on that. I've never used it. We're stuck using RCS
around here.

>But given a persistent distributed object system the revision control
>problem would be pretty much solved.

  See, everything comes back to Kelly and CWG getting the POS done. :-)

  Mike McDonald
  mikemac@engr.sgi.com