Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: RE: -clemao_io- broken in Stata 9? - Addendum

From   "Nick Cox" <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: st: RE: -clemao_io- broken in Stata 9? - Addendum
Date   Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:00:03 +0100

I want to comment generally on the idea 
of version control. There seems to be a 
folklore idea that version control is a 
Stata variant on time travel, so that 
saying (e.g.) 

version 7 

means that everything is exactly as it 
was when Stata 7 was what you were dealing 
with. This is not so. The only way to 
experience the totality of Stata 7 
is to use Stata 7. 

I have also encountered the idea that setting 

version 9 

in Stata 8 would enable a user of 
Stata 8 to use programs written for 
Stata 9. That is wishful thinking in 
its most distilled form.  

Rather, version control is a way for StataCorp 
to _reduce_ clashes, not to eliminate them, between 
old and new software. It is perhaps important to note 
that it does not cover (e.g.) 

much stuff regarded as obsolete 
some trivia 

Having said that, I once started to try to write 
an FAQ on this, and realised that I did not know 
nearly enough to do a good job. I guess that only 
senior StataCorp developers know enough about 
this to write a really definitive account. 

[email protected] 

Richard Williams
> At 04:40 PM 6/16/2005 -0400, Michael S. Hanson wrote:
> >(Anyone?)  In any event, I wanted to publicly thank Brian for his 
> >follow-up support.  He also correctly pointed out that all 
> four programs 
> >in -clemao_io- will need to be updated for Stata 9.  Hence, 
> I have taken 
> >the liberty of cc'ing Kit Baum (the author of 
> clem[ai]o[12].ado) on this 
> >message.  Thanks again to Nick and Brian for their assistance.
> Kit is using version control too, but it doesn't seem to be 
> helping.  I 
> imagine version control must be one of the toughest things for Stata 
> programmers - so many zillions of little commands and 
> programs that might 
> get broken inadvertently.  In this case I am not sure why it 
> worked in the 
> first place - I don't see it documented as an extended function - but 
> obviously it did.  Maybe it was an undocumented function that 
> Stata decided 
> to kill?

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index