[p4] p4 submit w/o an editor
drj at ravenbrook.com
Fri Jul 14 08:53:07 PDT 2006
On 14 Jul 2006, at 15:26, Weintraub, David wrote:
> Yes, in one sense, it is cheaper for Perforce to keep its programs
> fairly simple, and have its users work around the limitations.
> in reality, it only pushes the cost of Perforce a bit farther down the
> road. Bugs in scripts and triggers means more support that Perforce
> technical support must maintain. It takes longer to bring a new
> administrator up to speed as they must learn the various means to get
> around the limitations. Developers spend a lot more time writing and
> maintaining triggers. More errors happen, more damage control needs to
> take place. All of this drives up the costs. It's all a balancing act.
> Make your programs more complex can save local maintenance
> problems, but
> makes design and testing much harder. Simplifying the program saves
> testing and programming time, but adds to local maintenance costs.
You're preaching to the converted (at least in me).
I really like perforce, but their favourite answer, "you can script
it to do that", is wrong.
I find it similar to the emacs users that say "of course, you can
program it to do that".
I want an source code control system (and an editor), I don't want to
More information about the perforce-user