[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

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

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]