Re: import inconsistency

[Paul Edwards]

"Derek Robert Price" <derek@ximbiot.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.7981.1055774241.21513.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> >>Strange Thing 3: People are perplexed why you don't use the
> >>Attic, while as far as you can tell, you've set everything up in
> >>the most logical manner possible.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Your method probably is the most logical for the situation, but you are
> >still using vendor branches in a way they were not originally intended for.
> >
> >Now, there may possibly be a way to make vendor branches work better in your
> >use case, but I've missed any possible discussion on this because it has
> >been swamped under all the head/Attic traffic.
>
> I was going to bring that up.  It might make sense to redesign the
> vendor branch system to accomodate such a complex process, but why not
> just do your first import, branch _that_, and merge future imports like
> they came off any other branch?  Is there any reason in your process to
> require the vendor branch, intended as a base for the trunk, other than
> the ease of typing a `cvs import' command?

That defeats the whole purpose (and sense) that the "-b" in
"cvs import" was created for.

BFN.  Paul.