Re: moving a file

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 10:41:29 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: moving a file
>>
>> Using this method, technically, no history is lost. However, it is
>> fragmented.  You cannot use a single "cvs log" command to see the entire
>> history of the file (before and after the move), and you can't use "cvs
>> update" in the usual way to merge between branches if one of the contributors
>> occurs in the post-move history.

>All of the above can still be done, and very easily too -- just not with
>one command.

All of the above, plus the stuff you omitted from your quote, can certainly
be done and they do indeed require more than one command to accomplish.
But by virtue of requiring multiple commands and a CVS admin's knowledge
of how everything works plus extensive knowledge of the history of the
project, it is a major annoyance to track this stuff.

There's a lot to be said for a tool set that does not hinder progress, but
in this context CVS is severely in the developers' faces.  Under these
conditions the CVS admin invariably receives many complaints about CVS
"being in the way."  And in my opinion, they're reasonable in wanting a
tool that does what they want with a single command.

There's a strong desire to automate the sequence of commands to perform
renames, logs, merges, and whatever else.  But because there are so many
special cases, and because the whole thing depends on the end users' comments,
it simply can't be done with reliability.

So while I don't disagree that this method can be used for source code
reorganizations, I strongly disagree with your claim that using it is easy,
particularly when it is used a lot within long-lived projects.

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