[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: address@hidden: Re: rename in cvs]
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 19:15:30 GMT
User-agent: slrn/ (Linux)

In article <address@hidden>, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>[ On Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 05:44:16 (GMT), Kaz Kylheku wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: address@hidden: Re: rename in cvs]
>> In article <address@hidden>, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>> >>  * 'cvs log BAR' does not list changes in file FOO
>> >
>> >Of course not!!!!  You do not want it to!  That would be illogical.
>> That is false. Just because the tool doesn't do something doesn't mean we
>> don't *want* it or that it is illogical. Some version control tools can
>> handle renames.  The actual object being version is stored anonymously,
>> and a path name is just another versioned property of that object.
>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

It's irrational to want the present implementation of a tool to do
something that it isn't designed to do. CVS cannot represent the idea
that BAR was once called FOO; that they are semantically intended to be
the same object.

But it's not illogical to *want* the capability in a version control tool.

In a version control tool that has the capability, the user can see the
entire history of FOO, going back to the point where it was renamed to
BAR and beyond. The rename is just another historic event that is tracked,
and the path name of the file is just another property.  There is nothing
illogical about it.

You should accept that some people do not form a religious belief system
around the capabilities of a software system.

>Unless and until you understand this you will not understand how CVS
>manages change and how filenames are used within CVS.

Really? So until you wholeheartedly accept the limitations of a system the
point that you can't imagine or want anything else, you can't understand
that system?

I believe that you only need to undersatnd and accept the limitations
in order to properly *use* the system in the way it was designed. There
is no need to accept those limitations for any other purpose, religious
or whatever.

reply via email to

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