Re: CVS Update Behaviour

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 01:04:34 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
>
> Actually, using trivial modules exposes the problem as well.  Consider
> the following three module definitions:
> 
> top project
> part1-mod project/part1
> part2-mod project/part2

You've created an alias without really telling CVS about it.  This is
like aliasing a pointer in C.  How could even a magical new CVS which
had full rename support understand what you intend?  Not even the CVS
manual suggests using such ambiguous (broken) constructs (though older
examples, and IIRC the original paper, do suggest such dangerous things)

I've only once ever created modules like above, and in that case I was
very careful to document that the 'top' module was only ever to be used
by the release manager.

> Side note:  I can find only one reference to a problem with the modules
> database at all in the Cederqvist manual.  And it says to not to rely on
> misleading progress messages during checkout of ampersand modules.  There
> is no mention of the problems that have been discussed at length in this
> forum in the past.

Indeed the CVS manual is seriously lacking w.r.t. documenting the
implications and limitations about modules support.  I've never claimed
otherwise.

-- 
                                                                Greg A. Woods

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