[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Re: address@hidden: Re: rename in cvs]
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:58:50 -0700

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>In article <address@hidden>, Paul Sander wrote:
>>>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>>>[ On Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 23:12:44 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
>>>> Subject: Re: address@hidden: Re: rename in cvs]
>>>> >--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods:
>>>> >Let me repeat:  You DO NOT want or need to have "cvs log BAR" list
>>>> >changes in the file "FOO".  To want that is illogical.  It is
>>>> >unnecessary!
>>>> You do, if the version history of FOO is part of the history of BAR,
>>>> having become that way by way of a reorganization of the project.
>>>No, it's not.  That's a figment of your imagination -- not the reality
>>>of what CVS is doing.
>>You are right.  But I think the point we're trying to make is that CVS
>>is doing the wrong thing, i.e. it is broken.

>Not really. CVS does not support renaming. In that sense, its version
>management is incomplete. Let's not confuse incompleteness with
>incorrectness. Deleting a file and making a new one with the same
>contents is something other than renaming. It's not broken renaming.

>It only looks broken when we call it renaming; calling it renaming doesn't
>make it renaming.

Fine.  CVS doesn't support renaming.  We all know that.  So it's incomplete.
Some would still claim that its lack of support for renaming means that
CVS is broken and needs to be fixed.  That is to say, it's BAD (Broken
As Designed) and that the fix must be made at a very fundamental level.

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

reply via email to

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