Re: refactoring under CVS

[Noel Yap]

--- "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> wrote:
> [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 13:39:35 (-0800),
> Noel Yap wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
> >
> > This is another one of those "CVS is perfect for
> what
> > it does.  It's not broken.  And don't pay any
> > attention to those other tools behind the
> curtain!"
> > stances.  It doesn't hold water.
> 
> If it doesn't hold water then what are you doing on
> this side of the
> curtain?  Get the heck on the other side and stay
> there!

To warn those buying into the "CVS is perfect under
refactorings" thinking.

> CVS is not commercial feature-ware!  If you want
> that then go to the
> other side of the curtain and stay there!

Versioning file renames/moves is a version control
feature.  CVS is a version control tool (that's
supposed to be concurrent).  CVS doesn't handle file
renames/moves in a concurrent manner.  Therefore, CVS
isn't perfect for what it's supposed to do, it's
broken.

> > Yeah, so what?  The point is that the tool
> _supports_
> > merges.  It clearly doesn't when it comes to
> renames.
> > (I consider patch and emacs to be outside of the
> > tool).
> 
> I think you've again confused "support" with
> "assist", or something like
> that.  CVS doesn't do perfect merges -- and it never
> claimed it could.
> CVS gets you started, but you're in the driver's
> seat for finishing them
> off and if that means manually doing merges for
> renamed files then
> that's what you've got to do.  Get with the program!

Yes, I mean "assist".  CVS doesn't do perfect merges
under conflict scenarios.  File renames do not
constitute conflicts.

Noel

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