Re: Attic cleanup

[Paul Edwards]

"Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@cvshome.org> wrote in message 
news:mailman.7576.1055146760.21513.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> Paul Edwards <kerravon@nosppaam.w3.to> writes:
>
> > "Larry Jones" <lawrence.jones@eds.com> wrote in message 
> > news:mailman.7556.1055101737.21513.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> > > Paul Edwards writes:
> > > >
> > > > Can we have the Attic removed when there are no more files there,
> > > > with this?
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > It is usual to put things back into the state they were before.
>
> The existence of an empty Attic directory is just a container.
>
> It is not really part of the 'state' of a given directory. It dates back

I didn't say it was.

> to when the $State$ of 'dead' was not used to indicate that a file had
> been 'removed' from the mainline. It would probably be possible to
> remove the Attic processing these days, but it is not 100% backward
> compatible with very old cvs repositories...

I didn't even say that Attic processing should be removed.

> > Either that, or create an Attic for every directory.  No exceptions.
>
> Feel free to create an Attic directory for all directories if that makes
> you happy.

Ok, so if I submit a patch to create a mandatory Attic for every
directory, so that the repository is more consistent, it will be
accepted?

> Over time that is what I expect will happen to most
> repositories.

I would have thought that it would look more consistent if the only
directories that had Attic files were ones with obsolete files.

But I've got a fairly warped idea of what "neat and tidy" is.

> However, it is intended to be a lazy binding rather than
> immediate, just like the cvs 'magic branches' that reserve, but do not
> create an RCS branch to match a CVS branch.

Empty Attics mean only one thing - inconsistency.  If one directory
has an empty one, and the other doesn't, it doesn't make any sense
at all.

BFN.  Paul.