[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: modules confusion?
From: |
Michiel Meeuwissen |
Subject: |
Re: modules confusion? |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:53:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.3i |
Larry Jones <address@hidden> wrote:
> This was a deliberate change. In the old scheme, if you did:
>
> cvs co -d a/b/c foo/bar/baz
>
> the subdirectories a and a/b were both linked to Emptydir, which many
> people found very surprising. In the new scheme, a is linked to foo and
> a/b is linked to foo/bar, which seems more useful in the general case.
> The possibly unfortunate side effect you're encountering is that
> checking out:
>
> cvs co -d a/b/c foo
>
> links a to Emptydir, a/b to ., and a/b/c to foo. It isn't clear what to
> do in this case, but the current results are the natural results of the
> current scheme (thus requiring no special case coding) and don't seem to
> be any worse than any other results.
I think the old situation was more logical. Especially since having a
link to '.' seems very undesirable, even wrong, if you ask me. And
anyhow this change was not backwards compatible.
Anyhow, cvs co -d a/b/c foo is now an impossibility, right? Would it be
very involving to hack in the repository itself to actually move foo
to a/b/c?
Michiel
--
mihxil' Michiel Meeuwissen
Mediapark C101 Hilversum
+31 (0)35 6772979
[]()