Why, exactly, is LVCS no longer a per-project setting?


Was there some aching need for all projects to have the same LVCS settings? Was there some reason why I can no longer have LVCS turned on for my home projects (smaller, single programmer, no CVS backing), and turned off for my work projects (larger, multiple programmer, backed by CVS). There are some very nice things about #992 (shared modules, greatly improved Configure Mondules panel), but frankly this decision is lame, lame, lame.

--Dave Griffith

41 comments

Dave Griffith wrote:

>Was there some aching need for all projects to have the same LVCS settings?

>

I even think it should be settable by module.

Your votes, voice and support are welcome at :
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=22931


Alain

0


I knew I had those 50 votes sitting around unused for something.

Did I mention this decision was lame, lame, lame?

--Dave

0

But LVCS is required for CVS. Or are you not using IDEA's CVS functionality?

Dave Griffith wrote:

Was there some aching need for all projects to have the same LVCS settings? Was there some reason why I can no longer have LVCS turned on for my home projects (smaller, single programmer, no CVS backing), and turned off for my work projects (larger, multiple programmer, backed by CVS). There are some very nice things about #992 (shared modules, greatly improved Configure Mondules panel), but frankly this decision is lame, lame, lame.

--Dave Griffith


--

Erb

==============================================================
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer.
There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris."
- Larry Wall
==============================================================

0

I've only begun using the CVS functionality (which I must admit is pretty sweet), so that portion of my use case was for my previous workflow, not my current.

--Dave

0

Well, I've love to hear what astounding reason there was for making this global. I'd also propose that the braindead user who suggested it, and everyone who voted for it should have their licenses revoked.

I use LVCS when I don't have a CVS tree for a particular project, or when I know I'm about to do something very weird to a source tree and want to checkpoint various versions before deciding it should go into a remote cvs tree. I am completely baffled as to why this is now a global property, does anyone ever ALWAYS need LVCS for every single project they work, or always never ever need it for every single project?

Even more amusing, I still managed to get a nice internal error that seems to wind through a bunch of lvcs classes without even having the damn thing on. All the bugs of lvcs without any of the benefits. Joy joy.

0

On 2003/12/09 02:45, Hani Suleiman wrote:

Even more amusing, I still managed to get a nice internal error that
seems to wind through a bunch of lvcs classes without even having the
damn thing on. All the bugs of lvcs without any of the benefits. Joy
joy.


IDEA uses local cvs for internal synchronization. It only saves history
if local history is enabled.
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=22106#634240

Bas

0

All that is needed for cvs (or some other version control) is stored in lvcs
at any case. If local history is disabled it saves only last (or required
for vcs or undo) version.

--
Best regards,
Olesya Smirnova
JetBrains, Inc / IntelliJ Software
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Erb" <dont@evenbother.com> wrote in message
news:br2srt$rq1$1@is.intellij.net...

But LVCS is required for CVS. Or are you not using IDEA's CVS

functionality?
>

Dave Griffith wrote:

>

Was there some aching need for all projects to have the same LVCS

settings? Was there some reason why I can no longer have LVCS turned on for
my home projects (smaller, single programmer, no CVS backing), and turned
off for my work projects (larger, multiple programmer, backed by CVS).
There are some very nice things about #992 (shared modules, greatly improved
Configure Mondules panel), but frankly this decision is lame, lame, lame.

>

--Dave Griffith

>

--

>

Erb

>

==============================================================
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer.
There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris."
- Larry Wall
==============================================================



0

I think (I may be wrong) most of users do use local history (and so want it
to be enabled for all projects). Probably some of users want it to be
disabled (I actually do not know why). It looks more likely that in this
case they do not like idea of local history at all and do not want to have
it. Also all other options in "Local History" page seems to be rather common
user preferences than per-project properties. It's not likely that one wants
to add local history labels on each running test in one project and does not
want it in another one.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Hani Suleiman" <hani@formicary.net> wrote in message
news:28373264.1070934348213.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost...

Well, I've love to hear what astounding reason there was for making this

global. I'd also propose that the braindead user who suggested it, and
everyone who voted for it should have their licenses revoked.
>

I use LVCS when I don't have a CVS tree for a particular project, or when

I know I'm about to do something very weird to a source tree and want to
checkpoint various versions before deciding it should go into a remote cvs
tree. I am completely baffled as to why this is now a global property, does
anyone ever ALWAYS need LVCS for every single project they work, or always
never ever need it for every single project?
>

Even more amusing, I still managed to get a nice internal error that seems

to wind through a bunch of lvcs classes without even having the damn thing
on. All the bugs of lvcs without any of the benefits. Joy joy.


0


This would be reasonable if LVCS was a costless option. It's not, as there is an occasionally significant runtime and disk-space hit to turning it on. Given that, toggling LVCS and setting it's time window should be per-project (or per-module) settings.

--Dave

0

It's not, as there is an occasionally significant runtime and disk-space

hit to turning it on.

I think that disk-space any problem at all for rather small number of
people, am I wrong?
As for performance overhead I don't know any significant influence of
enabling local history on IDEA performance. Have you noticed any?

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Dave Griffith" <dave.griffith@cnn.com> wrote in message
news:30000707.1070977000448.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost...
>

This would be reasonable if LVCS was a costless option. It's not, as

there is an occasionally significant runtime and disk-space hit to turning
it on. Given that, toggling LVCS and setting it's time window should be
per-project (or per-module) settings.
>

--Dave



0

Hrm, well that'd be surprising (to me at least!). While the disk usage isn't the end of the world, it's hard to think that something that uses a gig of disk space has absolutely no impact on performance.

Is my usage that strange? If I have proper source control, then THAT is what I use. I only use local for stuff that isn't checked in yet. One of the first things I tend to do in almost every project is turn off lvcs, simply to reduce the amount of stuff that happens. i don't need it, so no need for that code to be executed and for me to be affected by any potential bugs in it.

I also think that it's confusing having it a global property. LVCS in my mind is a version control system that is local, that is what distinguishes it from CVS/sourcesafe/etc. So given this similarity, it's hard to intuitively accept or understand why one is applied to projects, and one is applied globally.

I understand that CVS uses it internally, but isn't that an implementation detail that should be hidden away from the user?

0

Hrm, well that'd be surprising (to me at least!). While the disk usage

isn't the end of the world, it's hard to think that something that uses a
gig of disk space has absolutely no impact on performance.

Yes, even if it uses a gig of space it may have no significant imact on the
performance. Note that this gig is not written to the disk immediately when
you start you project. It probably appeared after working with your project
for some time. The same amount of information would be written to the disk
independently of whether you enable LocalVCS or not. Just in case of
disabled LocalVCS files were removed earlier. So the only real impact is the
disk space.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Hani Suleiman" <hani@formicary.net> wrote in message
news:25706093.1070978163976.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost...

Hrm, well that'd be surprising (to me at least!). While the disk usage

isn't the end of the world, it's hard to think that something that uses a
gig of disk space has absolutely no impact on performance.
>

Is my usage that strange? If I have proper source control, then THAT is

what I use. I only use local for stuff that isn't checked in yet. One of the
first things I tend to do in almost every project is turn off lvcs, simply
to reduce the amount of stuff that happens. i don't need it, so no need for
that code to be executed and for me to be affected by any potential bugs in
it.
>

I also think that it's confusing having it a global property. LVCS in my

mind is a version control system that is local, that is what distinguishes
it from CVS/sourcesafe/etc. So given this similarity, it's hard to
intuitively accept or understand why one is applied to projects, and one is
applied globally.
>

I understand that CVS uses it internally, but isn't that an implementation

detail that should be hidden away from the user?


0

I NEED lvcs. I consider it a very valuable addition to the product. Disk
space is the only cost I can think of and that is a very minor cost.

CompUsa is running a special on a 120GB hard drive for $60. Buy it if you
have disk space problems. ; )


"Dave Griffith" <dave.griffith@cnn.com> wrote in message
news:30000707.1070977000448.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost...
>

This would be reasonable if LVCS was a costless option. It's not, as

there is an occasionally significant runtime and disk-space hit to turning
it on. Given that, toggling LVCS and setting it's time window should be
per-project (or per-module) settings.
>

--Dave



0

Disk space is a problem for me. I disable LVCS for most projects for this reason.

0

Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains) wrote:

>>It's not, as there is an occasionally significant runtime and disk-space
>>
>>
>hit to turning it on.
>
>I think that disk-space any problem at all for rather small number of
>people, am I wrong?

>

If it were not a problem, why did you default to 3 days, and not 3
month, or even 1 year ?

For a valid reason to set it to 1 year, - on SOME parts of a project, or
set of projects- see :
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=22931


Alain

0

Don't worry, it's not going to be removed. The complaint is that it's been moved to be an application instead of per-project setting.

For my laptop, even a 60GB drive is a few hundred dollars. (Mine came with a 40GB drive, and I've partitioned a third of it for Windows, a third for Linux, and a third FAT32 shared between the two. I can't really spare the space for my LVCS caches for every project.

0

I disable LVCS for most projects for this reason.


And for which projects you enable it?

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Keith Lea" <keith@cs.oswego.edu> wrote in message
news:9390528.1070980525399.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost...

Disk space is a problem for me. I disable LVCS for most projects for this

reason.


0

I code as a hobby, I don't get paid for any code I write. Some projects I feel are important enough to use the disk space to keep backup copies of the files, so I turn LVCS on for these. (I don't back up my hard drive.) On the other hand, I have a project on SourceForge that is very important to me, but I have LVCS off because it's a large project and I use SF's CVS servers, so it's not worth the disk space.

Also, I might turn LVCS on for a project if I'm going to be making a lot of changes (before checking it in, if I use CVS for that project).

0

I'm sure explaining why LVCS was moved from being a project-specific
option to being a global option would help us understand the decision.

Vince.


"Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains)" <valentin@intellij.com> wrote in message
news:br4kl2$539$1@is.intellij.net...

Hrm, well that'd be surprising (to me at least!). While the disk usage

isn't the end of the world, it's hard to think that something that uses a
gig of disk space has absolutely no impact on performance.

>

Yes, even if it uses a gig of space it may have no significant imact on

the

performance. Note that this gig is not written to the disk immediately

when

you start you project. It probably appeared after working with your

project

for some time. The same amount of information would be written to the disk
independently of whether you enable LocalVCS or not. Just in case of
disabled LocalVCS files were removed earlier. So the only real impact is

the

disk space.

>

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

>
>

"Hani Suleiman" <hani@formicary.net> wrote in message
news:25706093.1070978163976.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost...

Hrm, well that'd be surprising (to me at least!). While the disk usage

isn't the end of the world, it's hard to think that something that uses a
gig of disk space has absolutely no impact on performance.
>

Is my usage that strange? If I have proper source control, then THAT is

what I use. I only use local for stuff that isn't checked in yet. One of

the

first things I tend to do in almost every project is turn off lvcs, simply
to reduce the amount of stuff that happens. i don't need it, so no need

for

that code to be executed and for me to be affected by any potential bugs

in

it.
>

I also think that it's confusing having it a global property. LVCS in my

mind is a version control system that is local, that is what distinguishes
it from CVS/sourcesafe/etc. So given this similarity, it's hard to
intuitively accept or understand why one is applied to projects, and one

is

applied globally.
>

I understand that CVS uses it internally, but isn't that an

implementation

detail that should be hidden away from the user?

>
>


0

Vincent,

>I'm sure explaining why LVCS was moved from being a project-specific
>option to being a global option would help us understand the decision.
>

>


the "weekly progress report" has an exclusivity for this kind of info.
Too bad their reporter is dozing.
Start the press !!

Alain

0

I agree that most of the Local History settings could be global.

However, in my current situation, I'm working on a new project - not yet checked into VSS - which will have fairly fluid directories, files etc.
In this case, when using IDEA 3.0, I set the time to 30 (or even 60) days, so it effectively keeps my whole development history.
I cannot do this in IDEA 4.0 for an individual project, and I want to be able to.

In general, I want to set a fairly low value (a few days) for Local History, as the code is being checked out of and into VSS fairly frequently, and the folder structures are fairly fixed.
For these projects, I do not want a large value, as it's a total waste of disk space.

However, for some projects (such as mentioned above), I want to override this value to a higher value, as I'm not using any source control system.

As Vince previously asked (http://www.intellij.net/forums/thread.jsp?forum=22&thread=58436&message=645105&q=4c56435320776173206d6f7665642066726f6d206265696e6720#645105 ),
why was the decision originally made to change from a project-specific to a global option?
And is there any particular problem with it being a project-specific option?

Thanks,
Calum

0

Here is an idea. How about adding an option to remove all previous versions
in the lvcs if the project is marked current? This would allow you to
prevent to much history from being kept when you already have it in checked
into the perm repository.

"Calum MacLean" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:26072511.1073303289249.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

I agree that most of the Local History settings could be global.

>

However, in my current situation, I'm working on a new project - not yet

checked into VSS - which will have fairly fluid directories, files etc.

In this case, when using IDEA 3.0, I set the time to 30 (or even 60) days,

so it effectively keeps my whole development history.

I cannot do this in IDEA 4.0 for an individual project, and I want to be

able to.
>

In general, I want to set a fairly low value (a few days) for Local

History, as the code is being checked out of and into VSS fairly frequently,
and the folder structures are fairly fixed.

For these projects, I do not want a large value, as it's a total waste of

disk space.
>

However, for some projects (such as mentioned above), I want to override

this value to a higher value, as I'm not using any source control system.
>

As Vince previously asked

(http://www.intellij.net/forums/thread.jsp?forum=22&thread=58436&message=645
105&q=4c56435320776173206d6f7665642066726f6d206265696e6720#645105 ),

why was the decision originally made to change from a project-specific to

a global option?

And is there any particular problem with it being a project-specific

option?
>

Thanks,
Calum



0

However, in my current situation, I'm working on a new project - not yet

checked into VSS - which will have fairly fluid directories, files etc.

In this case, when using IDEA 3.0, I set the time to 30 (or even 60) days,

so it effectively keeps my whole development history.

Why not put it into some version control? Even if you don't share code with
anyone else it makes sense IMO.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Calum MacLean" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:26072511.1073303289249.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

I agree that most of the Local History settings could be global.

>

However, in my current situation, I'm working on a new project - not yet

checked into VSS - which will have fairly fluid directories, files etc.

In this case, when using IDEA 3.0, I set the time to 30 (or even 60) days,

so it effectively keeps my whole development history.

I cannot do this in IDEA 4.0 for an individual project, and I want to be

able to.
>

In general, I want to set a fairly low value (a few days) for Local

History, as the code is being checked out of and into VSS fairly frequently,
and the folder structures are fairly fixed.

For these projects, I do not want a large value, as it's a total waste of

disk space.
>

However, for some projects (such as mentioned above), I want to override

this value to a higher value, as I'm not using any source control system.
>

As Vince previously asked

(http://www.intellij.net/forums/thread.jsp?forum=22&thread=58436&message=645
105&q=4c56435320776173206d6f7665642066726f6d206265696e6720#645105 ),

why was the decision originally made to change from a project-specific to

a global option?

And is there any particular problem with it being a project-specific

option?
>

Thanks,
Calum



0

Why not put it into some version control? Even if you
don't share code with
anyone else it makes sense IMO.


Mainly because I'm do lots of refactoring - renaming classes, moving classes about, creating new classes etc.
Doing this in conjunction with VSS (which we use) would be a bit of a nightmare.

Also, the manual aspects of checking stuff in and out of VSS would be a pain.

Calum

0

I thought this was what LVCS was providing us... hence it's name.

I get a sense there is something happening here behind the scenes, some
hidden agenda. Maybe LVCS is to be gradually hidden away and used only
internally, maybe there has been a big design decision made which has
shortcomings for LVCS, which has manifested itself by making it not
configurable per-project for instance...

I feel there has been dodging of the questions by asking questions back
instead of answers, questioning why we use LVCS in the way we all do.
Maybe you don't think we'd like the answer to the original question...
maybe Jetbrains don't like the answer but don't want to admit it.

I don't know, maybe I'm way off track here, but the way this whole thing
has been handled has not been in the usual transparent Jetbrains
manner, rather I feel you're just hoping that if we're fobbed off and
distracted enough we will eventually forget about it.

Anyone else feel the same? Just some answers from JetBrains would
suffice to put our mind at rest.

Nathan 'just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not after me" Brown.

Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains) wrote:

Why not put it into some version control?

0

Doing this in conjunction with VSS (which we use) would be a bit of a

nightmare.

Doesn't our integration with VSS allow this smoothly?

>

Also, the manual aspects of checking stuff in and out of VSS would be a

pain.

Good idea is to check out all files and set option "Keep files checked out".
This way you get rid of checking out. IDEA helps you check in (Ctrl-K).

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Calum MacLean" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:5271581.1073321563982.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

Why not put it into some version control? Even if you
don't share code with
anyone else it makes sense IMO.

>

Mainly because I'm do lots of refactoring - renaming classes, moving

classes about, creating new classes etc.

Doing this in conjunction with VSS (which we use) would be a bit of a

nightmare.
>

Also, the manual aspects of checking stuff in and out of VSS would be a

pain.
>

Calum



0


Hear, hear. There's a dozen notes from Valentin on this thread, and not one of them answer the question I asked in the title of it. I'm willing to believe there's good design reasons behind this change. Check that, given JetBrains history and the quality of the product, I'm willing to believe there are GREAT design reasons behind this change. I'd just like to know what they are.

--Dave

0

Phew, glad I'm not alone. I'm a bit worried that what's happening here
is going against that historical trend of good design from Jetbrains. I
too would love to just sit back and trust here, but I have been guilty
of exactly this behaviour in the past... when I've been defending a bad
design decision. This just reeks of it to me.

N.

Dave Griffith wrote:

Hear, hear. There's a dozen notes from Valentin on this thread, and not one of them answer the question I asked in the title of it. I'm willing to believe there's good design reasons behind this change. Check that, given JetBrains history and the quality of the product, I'm willing to believe there are GREAT design reasons behind this change. I'd just like to know what they are.

--Dave

0

Ok, ok. The decision was made by 2 reasons:

1. It looked bad in the place where it was where it had one tab per-module.

2. Most of people wished to configure this settings only once and globally
for all projects. Having it on both levels (or on all 3 levels - global,
project and module) seems to be an overcomplication.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"Dave Griffith" <dave.griffith@cnn.com> wrote in message
news:12988724.1073324095222.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...
>

Hear, hear. There's a dozen notes from Valentin on this thread, and not

one of them answer the question I asked in the title of it. I'm willing to
believe there's good design reasons behind this change. Check that, given
JetBrains history and the quality of the product, I'm willing to believe
there are GREAT design reasons behind this change. I'd just like to know
what they are.
>

--Dave



0

Well, speaking for myself (and probably a few others) I think the way it worked previously was perfect. It was settable on a per project basis, and the default is set in template project properties. I'd be perfecty happy to deal with that level of granularity, rather than one extreme of per module, or the other extreme of single global.

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.