I can understand the reason for having a gui app for users that are not familiar with a shell, but constructing a new system for which cvs is well suited I cannot understand. I'd rather see a gui for cvs/make which would use less bandwidth than the semi-binary approach, but both systems will ofcourse be possible to have side by side. The only real benefit from the semi-binary system, as I see it, is that it does not need to rely on either Jam or make, which ofcourse is a nice benfit GUI-wise. Regards /Procton On 2002-06-19 at 21:18:04 [+0200], openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > it's more for newbies for semi-binary updates. > also, > if u keep a cvs tree of each,u compile to objects and link to a binary > anyway > (if u remove the objects u have to recompile everything. each update.) so > the size issue doesn't matter if u already keep sources+objects+binary. > now let's say u're interested in 20 open source projects, or make it a > 100, it would be alot of work to keep all these up to date, when instead > u can have a gui app that will do all that for you. mostly. > anyway, i think it's a nice idea, please re-read it, and tell me if you > see the benefits. > > Linus Almstrom wrote: > > Why would this be needed when we have and use cvs? >