[ZDP] Re: [Zope] Zope vs CVS (Re: [ZDP] OpenContent issues)

Ross J. Reedstrom reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu
Wed, 19 May 1999 10:31:35 -0500 (CDT)

Jim Fulton Wrote:
> IMO, a major disadvantage of CVS is that it is mostly "file"
> oriented.  In many (most) cases, multiple files evolve together.
> It isn't correct to use a particular version file without using
> compatible versions of other files.  CVS has a feature to tag
> collections of files to represent a configuration of files with 
> compatible versions, but you don't get to provide meta-data for tags
> and tags are an advanced feature that seems somewhat "tacked on".
> Zope, on the other hand, is transaction oriented.  Zope tracks meta-data
> for transactions, not individual objects.  This is a much saner approach, 
> IMO.

I think that the basic underpinnings for this sort of development version
control are present in Zope (the transactions), on feature I'd like to
see in the Undo screen is some way to get at more of the meta data for a
particular transaction - currently, the Undo screen shows you the method
called, who called it, and when. However, usually, when I need to undo
something, I'm thinking "I want to revert this DTMLMethod/Image/File to
what is was..." i.e.  I think about the object I've acted on, not how
I acted on it. Sometimes that's encoded in the method URL, sometimes
not. So, I guess if the transaction provided a view page that listed
the Objects it modified, that'd be a big help. Hmm, I suppose I should
go enter a wishlist bug...

To continue the CVS comparison, the _next_ step is some form of diff -
not only 'what Object changed' but 'how did it change?'


Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu> 
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St.,  Houston, TX 77005