Re: checking in links to source control

[Edward Peschko]

> If you think only for a very few moments about this problem I'm sure
> you'll see that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of ways
> to manage special files using scripts and data stored in ordinary text
> files, the latter which can easily be stored and versioned by CVS.
> 

Sorry if I'm not being clear - but to me, serialization is exactly that - taking
something that is not a file, turning it into a file, and then storing that 
file for access. 'Deserialization' is the process of reversing this, turning
a serialized file back into its non-file status.

And that's exactly what I want to do -  I want to build in serialization
into CVS. And to  have a generic, programmable way of cvs handling the 
serialization so I don't have to write wrappers, and people don't have to 
constantly be reinventing the wheel. I don't want a hack to do it, I want a 
standardized 'tool' way of doing it. It makes sense to be integrated with CVS 
for the simple reason that cvs provides the method for guaranteeing this 
standard.

> I.e. indirection is more often your friend than you might think.
> 
> And that's as far as I'm willing to go on this -- there's no sense in
> going any further.

Look, just give me a method/procedure/whatever for submitting a patch to cvs,
and promise to be open (anybody on the list) if I have questions about the cvs 
code.  I'll promise to make the mechanism robust, generic, perhaps programmable.

And getting the ability to serialize and version control directories alone 
should be more than worth the effort.

Ed