[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: renaming under CVS
From: |
Noel Yap |
Subject: |
Re: renaming under CVS |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 06:20:55 -0800 (PST) |
--- "Mark D. Baushke" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Noel wrote:
>
> >Let me explain so even you can understand:
> Developer A should be able
> >to modify a file while developer B renames it. The
> merge should go
> >gracefully and seemlessly regardless of who checked
> in first since
> >there is no conflict. But this isn't true when
> using CVS.
>
> Well, even in other systems that do version control
> of directories,
> the above is not usually that peaceful (cf,
> ClearCase).
I don't recall running into any glitches when using CC
in this scenario. What sort of problems have you
encountered?
> Once long ago in a dim memory I recall on some
> mailing list we talked
> about the possibility of adding version control to
> directories.
>
> It is possible to extend cvs to deal with renames of
> directories and
> files, it just requires a lot of work.
>
> Right now cvs gets very confused if you create a
> subdirectory foo and
> also manage to have a foo,v in the same directory.
> Clean up that
> glitch by making a ,v file with the same name as a
> directory be a
> special version controlled entity that controls the
> names of files in
> that directory and you have the basis of a solution
> to version
> controlling names...
>
> Of course, this means an extra few checks for files
> with the same
> names as directories and it also means coming up
> with a reasonable
> format to describe versioned elements for the
> directory and what it
> means to move a file to a different directory.
>
> The biggest downside here is the performance hit of
> needing to look
> for a ,v file to shadow every directory. However, it
> may also mean
> that support for something like a symbolic link
> might also be possible
> and I know of a number of people that would like to
> see those added to
> what cvs is able to track.
What I was thinking of was to place all the archive
files in one directory. This would, of course, break
some usage of permissioning, but I think it might be
better to permission on a per-module basis, anyway.
If this idea doesn't fly too well, I'll need to think
up of some other scheme.
I don't like the idea of versioning symlinks. I think
it's a hairy proposition even in CC (eg what about
platform independence, should we start versioning
other file types, ...).
Noel
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
- Re: renames under CVS, (continued)
- Re: CVS Update Behaviour, Noel Yap, 2002/02/23
- Re: CVS Update Behaviour, Greg A. Woods, 2002/02/24
- Re: renaming under CVS, Noel Yap, 2002/02/24
- Re: renaming under CVS, Mark D. Baushke, 2002/02/25
- Re: renaming under CVS, Mark, 2002/02/25
- Re: renaming under CVS, Paul Sander, 2002/02/26
- Re: renaming under CVS,
Noel Yap <=
- Re: renaming under CVS, Greg A. Woods, 2002/02/25
- Re: renaming under CVS, Paul Sander, 2002/02/26
- Re: renaming under CVS, Noel Yap, 2002/02/26
- Re: renaming under CVS, Greg A. Woods, 2002/02/26
- Re: renaming under CVS, Noel Yap, 2002/02/26
- Re: renaming under CVS, Greg A. Woods, 2002/02/27
- Re: renaming under CVS, Noel Yap, 2002/02/26
- Re: CVS Update Behaviour, Nagy Gabor, 2002/02/25
- Re: CVS Update Behaviour, Noel Yap, 2002/02/22
- Re: renames under CVS, Noel Yap, 2002/02/22