[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS Update Behaviour

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:57:01 -0800

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 13:25:37 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
>> And every time a merge is done from a branch where a rename was done on
>> one of the branches.

>And what has been said about that for years now?  DON'T DO THAT!!!!

Yeah, right after it was said that such a capability is a requirement...
Such merging is common in the maintenance phase of a product.

>>  This involves several files every time a patch goes
>> out, if the project was reorganized since the code diverged.  This
>> phonomenon is much more common than you think.

>Maybe because of accidents, but that's something which is correctable.

In my experience, it's rarely due to accidents.  Such reorgs are typically
well considered.

>Meanwhile using 'patch', or some other merge tool also works just fine.

Only if the developers know about it, and how use it.  It's not a standard
tool, so it falls well outside their experience.  (Most are not even
familiar with all of the standard Unix tools.)

>> Not renaming files is a fine workaround for lacking the ability to rename
>> files, if you can live with it.  You can obviously live with it, but some
>> of us cannot.

>Who said you can't rename files?  You just have to plan for it.

As long as CVS doesn't support it properly, you can't do it properly
regardless of how much planning you do.  Everything's a workaround.

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

reply via email to

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