Re: CVS Update Behaviour

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 20:57:01 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
>
> >--- 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.

Huh?  What kind of idiocity is that?  Since when are renames an absolute
requirement of maintenance?  Anyone silly enough to do a rename during
maintenance and to do so only on the patch branch, is going to get what
they deserve!  (I.e. a whole lot of unnecessary confusion and a lot of
extra manual work during merges! :-)

> Only if the developers know about it, and how use it.

Yup, most developers I know do pick up wrenches to hammer in screws too...

Sigh.  When will you and they ever learn?

>  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.)

"patch" has been a "standard" tool in unix development for nearly two
decades now.  Prior to that the commonly used tool that can do the exact
same job with only slightly less success and using the exact same tool
to create the diff, was called 'ed'.  It's been around for over three
decades now.  Time to crawl out from under your rock and get with the
program Paul!

-- 
                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>