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
Please sign in to leave a comment.
I agree, I liked the old way better, as a per-project thing. I don't need it per-module.
The only free version control systems I know of are CVS and Subversion. CVS is terribly complicated if you're new to version control, and I don't think most people want to have to set up CVS or Subversion on their local machine because you guys decided LVCS should be at the per-project level.
Keith Lea wrote:
>I liked .. as a per-project thing. I don't need it per-module.
>
Well, as modules can be shared across project, I think you can't avoid
it. It's either global, or per-module.
I'm all for per-module setting, for the reasons stated in :
LVCS : restore __by project__ setting + enable __by module__ setting
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=22931
Alain
In article <btc4gi$bg6$1@is.intellij.net>,
"Valentin Kipiatkov \(JetBrains\)" <valentin@intellij.com> wrote:
This would be easier if your cvs implementation allowed "local".
Setting up a cvs repository that uses local access does not require
opening any potential security holes, and requires only a directory with
read/write permissions.
I realize that this is a terrible way to do CVS for a networked machine
or for multiple users, but exposing my own personal source via pserver
or ssh is not something I want to do. Those ports remain closed on my
machine, to mimimize security holes.
Scott
But why cannot you enable 30-60 days local history for all projects?
--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Scott Ellsworth" <scott@alodar.com> wrote in message
news:scott-0B2B5D.12302005012004@host98.intellij.net...
>
yet
days,
with
>
>
>
Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains) wrote:
>But why cannot you enable 30-60 days local history for all projects?
>
1/
For some projects - example: a supporting library dev. project, that you
change rarely - it would make sense to select 1 year, rather than 1 month.
As space is not free, there is a genuine need for finer grained - per
module - LVCS time span.
Look at the motivations in :
LVCS : restore __by project__ setting + enable __by module__ setting
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=22931
They are still valid.
2/
As a module can be shared by multiple project, "per project" LVCS time
settings has become "per module".
3/
The lifespan - e.g. 3 days - in the LVCS should be "active days".
Otherwise, a long week-end would wipe out your default 3-days code
change memory.
(confession: I didn't check if doesn't already works like that. )
Alain
Alain Ravet wrote:
>
>
Actually, if 3/ were implemented, I would be happy with 1 setting for
all project!
I would set it to
"30 active days"
, and that would be fine. For the low-activity projects, it would cover
all the modifications I could write over 1 or 2 years!
I don't think I would ever need to go back in time further than that.
Alain
In article <bte94h$kn7$1@is.intellij.net>,
"Valentin Kipiatkov \(JetBrains\)" <valentin@intellij.com> wrote:
You advised the original poster to set up version control, as it makes
sense. I agree completely - having real VC on a project makes life so
much easier. When I said it would be easier to put source into VC if
you supported local cvs mode, I meant that local cvs works with many
tools, and is fairly easy to get working, but it does not work with IDEA.
I also use the local history, but some of my code analysis tools look at
the CVS revision history to generate metrics.
Scott
>
We already discussed such ideas here in the team and I liked them. Do we
have such feature request in the tracker?
--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"
"Alain Ravet" <alain.ravet.list@wanadoo.be> wrote in message
news:bte9vs$drf$1@is.intellij.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains) wrote:
>>3/
>>The lifespan - e.g. 3 days - in the LVCS should be "active days".
>>Otherwise, a long week-end would wipe out your default 3-days code
>>change memory.
>>(confession: I didn't check if doesn't already works like that. )
>>
>>
>
>We already discussed such ideas here in the team and I liked them. Do we
>have such feature request in the tracker?
>
There is one, if you take into account my suggestion, and not the OP, at
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=22931#761904
Alain
Even better, this one has been there for donkey's years :
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=11157
N.
Alain Ravet wrote:
>>> 3/
>>> The lifespan - e.g. 3 days - in the LVCS should be "active days".
>>> Otherwise, a long week-end would wipe out your default 3-days code
>>> change memory.
>>> (confession: I didn't check if doesn't already works like that. )
>>>
>>
>>
>> We already discussed such ideas here in the team and I liked them. Do we
>> have such feature request in the tracker?
>>