[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Possible modifications to CVS.
From: |
Paul Sander |
Subject: |
RE: Possible modifications to CVS. |
Date: |
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:00:25 -0800 |
>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>[ On Tuesday, December 18, 2001 at 20:00:54 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: RE: Possible modifications to CVS.
>>
>> It's also a required feature if you're migrating from one well-organized
>> structure to another, if you also require keeping the cumulative history
>> of each file in one easy-to-find place.
>Reorganisation can much more easily be done outside of the respective
>version control tools, and then the history can be migrated intact.
I'm trying to understand: Reorganize outside the version control tools,
then migrate history. Something's wrong with this picture. Either you
copy out snapshots and re-import, which by definition loses history, or
you muck about with the repository and lose reproducibility.
>It's just a matter of perspective.
I think it's more than that.
>> >If you organise your files first, and then put them into CVS, such a
>> >capability is unnecessary and if poorly implemented would even get in
>> >the way (in any number of possible ways).
>>
>> If poorly implemented...
>Oh, come on Paul! Two other highly respected CVS experts have claimed
>that it would be nearly impossible to graft on such a feature to the
>existing CVS implementation. Thus how could it possibly not be poorly
>implemented!?!?!?!?!
With the existing CVS implementation, this is true. However, I think
that all of us who've contributed code agree that CVS has needed a new
design for quite a few years, to address more problems than just this
one.
>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden