Re: address@hidden: Re: rename in cvs]

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods:

>[ On Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 01:59:20 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: address@hidden: Re: rename in cvs]
>>
>> And not only do you lose the ability to get a file's entire version
>> history with a single "cvs log",

>That is not a loss -- it is a gain.  You have it backwards.

I gain the requirement of having to type multiple "cvs log" or "cvs rlog"
commands, after figuring out every place a file has lived during its
lifetime.  I gain the requirement of carefully scrutinizing the output of
each of those commands to determine which revisions contributed to my
working copy.

In other words, I gain a lot.  But I see no benefit here.

>> you also have added to a file's revision
>> history all of the unwanted stuff from a previous incarnation that was
>> renamed away.

>Well, yes, that's a bit of a bug, but we've discussed the obvious and
>very easy solution several times in the past

By trying to divine linked lists from comments that the users are supposed
to remember to type?  "Unreliable" is a euphemism.

>> Defending the ambiguity of the histories of logically different files that
>> happen to share a path at one time or another, and the fragmentation of
>> a file's entire version history is nonsensical.

>Since you've never really understood how CVS manages change and how
>filenames are used within CVS, this strange is not unsurprising.

I've always completely understood how CVS manages changes.  I've also
always understood that the design is badly broken.

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