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

[Kaz Kylheku]

In article <address@hidden>, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>[ On Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 19:15:30 (GMT), Kaz Kylheku wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: address@hidden: Re: rename in cvs]
>>
>> 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.
>
>Are we talking about CVS, or some fictional tool here?  I'm talking
>about CVS.

Even if you are talking about CVS, you can still wish that it did
something for you that it does not. Users of existing software tend to
have requirements that are not met by that software, and which sometimes
appear in new revisions. That is how progress takes place, in part.

>> 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.
>
>Ah, so you're not talking about CVS -- why are you posting here then?

To counter your insulting claim that wishing for a hygienic renaming
feature is illogical. Since that claim was posted here, my reply is
posted here also.