From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 12 13:48:24 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0E116A41A for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:48:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from agus.262@gmail.com) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.176]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC2913C469 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:48:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from agus.262@gmail.com) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u77so420051pyb for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:48:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=5pkCB/mcfHrJG03FW6gfyQfZ3rM4oOW26MlDi8VdHJ0=; b=omEb5/ntTZU5runybYjBxPElPGcBZ6b5v4yZM+yE6TU3G9kXiZ3HsqnJg9Fx6zcZ5Yc+IrkHdh4QUwYcMXDEmjLHJSj4lg8bXi1s+lpFyLW5SmR6s17FtOMrUpsRQ2sUuMFb5/bLzyHdmRPLLWqj44BNfIOmu9JlTfakV9u6Ukk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=LfV8hj/4OkPawbusvNBfpnyYq30VwFfzap1pJG/fagJE/Wz+4UC5AmzfShuEX+6iyYnFG5LNo2E0GQyKVXZW60beakHjVvp0FvGshGI9RHmDs+LHKaCSz3P605AlYXcwx12L3mETt5m1IrPcjnNagJwGEv4fO+QkEbAzrgxPPUM= Received: by 10.35.40.10 with SMTP id s10mr8812380pyj.1189604902867; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.83.16 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:48:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:48:22 -0300 From: Agus To: freebsd-questions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <00c401c7f4ff$f8959960$0a00a8c0@a64x23800p> <20070912073638.GA51618@huppi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Which versioning system is the simplest to use?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:48:25 -0000 > 2007/9/12, Tom Huppi : > > > > On 22:44 Tue 11 Sep , David Christensen wrote: > > > Agus wrote: > > > > I am doing a little bit of security and log watching with sec.pl and > > > > was trying to mantain de secconf files organized... So whenever one > > > > is changed it keeps track of the change and can rollback.... > > > > O that is what i am going to use de versioning sytem for... > > > > This is just my experiance on this stuff. There are no right or > > wrong ways to do it, and happily, all kinds of altrnatives. > > > > > If you only have a file or two, I'd suggest RCS. "man rcs" should get > > you going. > > > An earlier version of this book helped me understand RCS well enough > > to write > > > custom scripts that used RCS on sets of files: > > > > > > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/rcs/index.html > > > > I've use RCS pretty religiously for system administration...but > > in fact rarely do I actually refer back to older revisions in > > practice. I've always just refered to this document: > > > > http://www.samag.com/documents/s=9367/sam9812a/9812a.htm > > > > which has been enough to get me by. The biggest hassle is the > > $LOGNAME deal which can different depending on how one gets a root > > shell. > > > > > > > Then I heard about CVS, which uses RCS format archive files (so you > > can use > > > either tool) and provides the set functionality I needed plus > > more. "info cvs" > > > is the online resource, but I did better with an earlier version of > > the book: > > > > > > http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/cvsbook.html > > > > > > > > > I now use CVS to maintain version control of the configuration files > > on my > > > various systems. I build a CVS tree which is a sparse mirror of the > > root file > > > system. Whenever I want to change a configuration file in the "live" > > tree, I > > > copy the intervening directories and/or file into the CVS tree, check > > everything > > > in, make my changes, copy the changed filed back to the original > > location, test, > > > and repeat the edit/ copy/ test sequence as necessary. When all is > > well, I check > > > in the file to CVS. As a variation on a theme, I sometimes move the > > "live" file > > > and replace it with a symbolic link into the CVS tree. But this > > approach can be > > > messier when you make a mistake and destabilize the > > system. YMMV. Using CVS in > > > this way provides for the use cases you've identified, and it also > > allows me to > > > check out the trees from other machines to compare/ contrast. Best > > yet is when I > > > rebuild a machine -- restoring configuration is a matter of installing > > CVS, check > > > out the system configuration file tree, and copying/linking. > > > > I tend to use revision control for (software) systems I > > create or maintain installations of, but find it worthwhile > > to create a Makefile to actually install the files (and often > > the system itself.) I find this more flexible in that I can > > create different targets to do different things, structure my > > repository differently than the destination, ensure proper > > ownership and modes of the files, etc. A script would work to, > > but I happen to know gmake reasonably well. > > > > CVS is pretty easy to set up and maintain, and works fine for > > reasonable source trees in my experiance. CVS is simple enough > > so that all kinds of games can be played, but often these games > > (like moving thing in the repository) invalidate revision > > control at a basic level. My experiance is that people figure > > out what is possible some time before they figure out what > > exactly they have done...but also that in practice, it rarely > > matters. > > > > > I suspect that there is are open-source projects that already do much > > or all of > > > what I'm doing with CVS. You might want to look or ask around -- try > > "tripwire". > > > > > > > > > SVN is supposed to be a "better CVS", etc.. But as I understand it, > > SVN assigns > > > a the same version number to every file in a set whenever any one of > > them > > > changes. I prefer the RCS and CVS approach of numbering each file > > independently, > > > so I can easily determine which files in a set have changed and which > > haven't. > > > This ability was critical for me when I was doing kernel/ device > > driver > > > development and comparing/ using various FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD > > source > > > files. At the time they all used RCS/ CVS numbering, so it was easy > > to see what > > > files were the same and what were different between the platforms. > > > > I much prefer SVN to CVS after using it some in the context of a > > somewhat bloated repository...though I prefer it for small ones > > as well. I very much consider the revision scheme you mention a > > feature rather than a bug. It almost completely invalidates the > > need for static tagging among other things. > > > > SVN is considerably more complex to install and manage than CVS, > > but not to bad with ports and a simple mode of access (of which > > there are several.) > > > > Many open-source projects are switching or starting out under > > SVN these days, so that would be a choice factor...if I were > > making the choice. > > > > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/ > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Tom > > > > > > > > > > > HTH, > > > > > > David > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > > -- > > > > Wow...Thanks a lot guys for your very nice responses....I will investigate a litlle all the choices u gave me....but i think i will go for cvs, as i dont need anything "fancy"...just to keep it simple..... Very much appreciated.... Thanks and we 'll probably see again on another topic....haha.... C ya... Agustin