Re: renames under CVS

[Noel Yap]

--- "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> wrote:
> [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 12:21:23 (-0800),
> Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: renames under CVS
> >
> > If it's not necessary, then it's at least very
> nice to
> > have.
> 
> How nice????  I've been trying to get actual metrics
> about this for
> years, and nobody but myself seems to care about
> making actual
> measurements -- y'all just want to argue for the
> feature because you
> seem to imagine that it would be "very nice to
> have"!

First of all, I said, "If it's not necessary".  The
real question is "How necessary?", not "How nice?"

Second, I think you cannot gather metrics (something
objective) on such a subjective question.  I can't
think of a way to ask objectively the question.  Can
you?

Or, if you think that the question is already
objective, can you provide such a metric for it (eg
how do we go about measuring it?).

How about (as you've asked before): How often has one
used such a feature when such a feature were
available?  Some of us have already answered this
question.  I, for one, have said that I do it quite
often.

How about: How many of us complain that such a feature
doesn't exist in CVS?  I think, as you've stated
before, that this is one of the most requested lacking
feature in CVS.

> Every actual measurement of his procedure I've made
> in my own work, and
> that of those I've directly observed, shows that
> it's a totally
> unnecessary feature.

Then, either your sampling of projects is extremely
skewed or your metric was biased.  Can you provide how
you measured this?

> > Quite often when I was using a tool that allowed
> you
> > to do it easily.  Hardly ever under CVS 'cos it's
> such
> > a pain.
> 
> How often?!?!?!?!?!?  Facts and figures please, not
> conjecture and allusion!

I can't say that I actually counted.  My guestimate
would be about twice a month -- still way more than
when using CVS.

> > Also, your question is irrelevant.  I know many
> people
> > who never look at the version history of a file;
> > they're content with simply knowing the current
> state
> > of the file.  Does this mean that a command like
> "cvs
> > log" is unnecessary?
> 
> No, my question is extremely relevant.  CVS is not
> commercial feature-ware!

So what?  Should we then remove "cvs log" since many
users I've seen don't use this feature?

Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com