Open source collaboration [WAS: Re: Rev vs. AJAX... Ajax vs TAOO]

[Richard Gaskin]

david bovill wrote:
> The most obvious example for me is at the handler level.

You make a strong argument for handler-level granularity for your 
workflow, but I believe that goes beyond what CVS was designed to handle.

As I understand it CVS is document-based, and source files often include 
more than one function.

I suppose one could write a tool that breaks down source files into a 
more granular form for your workflow, but before putting in the effort I 
would wonder why so many projects seem to work well with less granularity.

Besides, isn't there a feature for sharing handlers in Scripters Scrapbook?

Your argument may indicate why after so many years of discussion about a 
desire for CVS tools for Rev none have been built:

Everyone prefers a different level of granularity.  Some want to work by 
handler, others by control or script, others by stack.


I tend to break projects down by stack if only because I'm lazy and in 
the xTalk object model it seems a natural dividing line which makes it 
programmatically easy to break up, share, and re-integrate modules.  It 
also tends to follow functionality divisions, both in terms of UI and 
libraries, which works well for me as I often assign module owners based 
on a team member's mastery of or interest in a specific aspect of the app.

Stack-level granularity has worked well for me in teams from 2 to 20, 
but of course I don't claim it's necessarily optimal for everyone, just 
what's helped me get apps out the door in the shops I've worked in.


With a bit of effort it shouldn't be too hard to make a tool that 
atomizes stacks into whatever level best suits one's workflow.

Is the desire for such a tool prevalent enough to translate into a 
working tool?

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  __________________________________________________
  Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev