Re: modules confusion?

[Michiel Meeuwissen]

Larry Jones <address@hidden> wrote: 
> This was a deliberate change.  In the old scheme, if you did:
> 
>       cvs co -d a/b/c  foo/bar/baz
> 
> the subdirectories a and a/b were both linked to Emptydir, which many
> people found very surprising.  In the new scheme, a is linked to foo and
> a/b is linked to foo/bar, which seems more useful in the general case. 
> The possibly unfortunate side effect you're encountering is that
> checking out:
> 
>       cvs co -d a/b/c foo
> 
> links a to Emptydir, a/b to ., and a/b/c to foo.  It isn't clear what to
> do in this case, but the current results are the natural results of the
> current scheme (thus requiring no special case coding) and don't seem to
> be any worse than any other results.

I think the old situation was more logical. Especially since having a
link to '.' seems very undesirable, even wrong, if you ask me. And
anyhow this change was not backwards compatible.

Anyhow, cvs co -d a/b/c foo is now an impossibility, right? Would it be
very involving to hack in the repository itself to actually move foo
to a/b/c?

 Michiel


-- 
mihxil'  Michiel Meeuwissen 
Mediapark C101 Hilversum  
+31 (0)35 6772979
[]()