Re: renaming under CVS

[Mark]

--- Noel Yap <address@hidden> wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking that, in the long run, it'll
> improve performance.  Let's say that all filenames are
> now mapped to their corresponding archive files, then
> there's really need to create one lock file for the
> entire module much as CC locks the entire VOB.  In
> fact, if backwards compatibility weren't an issue (eg
> if it's a new repository), this behaviour could be the
> default.

Backward compatibility is good up until the point it holds things back. If CVS
can be changed/resigned in a way to allow support directory versioning and
merge tracking, I think that those improvements an important enough to make an
exception to the hardline (and very good to have) backward compatibility rule.

Call it CVS ver. 2.0. Why can't CVS have two supported releases in parallel?

Mark

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