Re: CVS Update Behaviour

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 22:09:31 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
>>
>> Hmmm...  Let's recap:
>> 
>> >>      cp $1 $2
>> >>      cvs rm -f $1
>> >>      cvs add $2
>> >>      cvs commit -m "moved $1 to $2" $1 $2
>> 
>> Where is the *location of the RCS file* recorded in the comment?

>You don't need to know the location of the RCS files -- that's internal
>to CVS and not for human consumption.  It's of no use in a client-server
>invocation in any case.

>You don't need to know it because of course the pathnames given in the
>parameters $1 and $2 will always have a fixed relationship to each other
>and that relationship is sufficient to transform either into the
>pathname necessary for use with 'cvs log' or 'cvs update -p', etc. no
>matter where the reader starts from (so long as they are within a
>working directory for the same module and so long as they know where
>they are with relation to the log they're currently reading).  This is
>really very trivial pathname stuff -- I don't understand why you even
>think it's an issue.

What you say is only true if both the source and destination of
the rename are contained within the same module for the lifetime
of the file, and that that module is the only one that contains
them.  But that is not the general case.

When the module is not defined trivially, i.e. it uses aliases or
inclusion, the relationship between the two files becomes variable.
In the event that a file is moved into a shared module and at a later
time the target file's history is needed (from within a module other
than the original one), there's no record of its original module in
the comment.

This situation is complicated further in the event that the modules
database is modified and the original directory is no longer included
in the old module definition.

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden