Re: CVS Update Behaviour

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 16:19:11 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
>
> >--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
> 
> >[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 10:27:23 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> >> Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour
> >>
> >> inclusion, the relationship between the two files becomes variable.
> >> In the event that a file is moved into a shared module and at a later
> >> time the target file's history is needed (from within a module other
> >> than the original one), there's no record of its original module in
> >> the comment.
> 
> >But that is definitely not the general case.
> 
> It may not be the absolute most common case (trivial module declarations
> are), but it falls well within the normal bounds of modules database usage.

No, not even the "normal bounds" -- only "the possible bounds".

There have been many discussions, and there's even documentation in
several places, telling all who'll read it that using non-trival modules
declarations is like dancing with the devil -- you will encounter problems!

-- 
                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>