[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Renaming (was Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics)

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Re: Renaming (was Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 01:28:29 -0800

On Feb 5, 2005, at 12:52 PM, address@hidden wrote:

[ On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 18:23:08 (-0300), Alexandre Augusto Drummond Barroso wrote: ]
Subject: RE: Renaming (was Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics)

I agree with you. I think the result from an annotate would be
completely different when using a "move" operation instead of
traditional "mv-remove-add" operation.

You are thinking of, or wishing for, something at a higher level than a
simple "cvs annotate".  (and "annotate" is the wrong word for what you
mean, especially in the context of CVS where it has an explicit meaning)

The idea behind using a wrapper script to implement "cvsmove" is that it
would create predictable, parsable, log entries.

This would make it much more reliable for another _external_ history
analysis tool to decipher what was intended when it sees that a file was
removed from one location then another file with identical content was
added to a new location.

Gee, Greg, how much version control capability do you really want to offload from CVS?

Paul Sander | "Lets stick to the new mistakes and get rid of the old
address@hidden | ones" -- William Brown

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]