Re: CVS Update Behaviour

[Nagy Gabor]

On 02-Feb-22 14:14, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> No, you're full of crap too if you think that's a necessary feature.

Frankly. Why does it hurt you that someone else needs something else from
your favourite tool?

I think renaming and moving files accross directories is nice to have.
I don't think it is necessary, in a way that I can live without this
feature. 

But if I think that this would make my life easier, don't try to tell me,
I shouldn't _think_ that.

When I discovered cvs did not know this, I was puzzled, and sad. And
used and liked cvs ever since. During these years I've used other tools,
which had this feature. I noted, that it was good. But if I can choose,
I choose cvs.

And I still long for the mapping of entities to filenames. What I would
like to see, is a kind of Inode way of storing things in the repository.
Multiple names of the same entity, renames, anything. And one
representation

Lastly: If there is something that doesn't hurt you, (you can cat a
file to another name and rm the old one, don't have to mv, so you can do
it as you always did) but others would like to have that particular
feature, why object? Why do you want to judge if it is rightfully needed
by others?

You don't need this. cvs doesn't do this at the moment. Why is that a
problem, if we are talking about enhancing cvs so that in the future it
will suit the needs of more people?

Maybe the current repository structure can't hold this information. I
don't know, as I'm only a user of cvs. But I don't understand why people
seem to go crazy over the mention of this wishlist item.

> First off tell me how often you've actually had to do this operation in
> relation to other operations.

I'd say one time is enough. In the current project I'm working on, there
were renaming of files, and branches and bugfixes in previous releases.
Yes, I can merge with typing. But I wouldn't mind if all I have to do was
the same as with files with the old name.

Gee