Front page | perl.perl6.porters |
Postings from April 2000
Re: CVS: Ugh
From: Bennett Todd
April 5, 2000 11:26
Re: CVS: Ugh
Message ID: 20000405142553.K549@rahul.net
2000-04-05-14:19:53 Ilya Zakharevich:
> Why sticking with RCS is a limitation?
Not just sticking with RCS; sticking with RCS and attempting to
ensure that the RCS tree comes as close as possible to representing
the exact state of the real tree.
> I can move RCS files around without any problem. All what is
> needed is a file with a mapping "real name" => "the name in the
> source tree".
Yup, if you're willing to lose the ability to just look at the RCS
tree and nothing else and [nearly] reconstruct the represended
directory heirarchy (modulo only deletions), then it's easy to add
another data structure to allow you to track renames. Is it worth
it? Opinions differ.
For my tastes, CVS is ideal just the way it is. Don't add more
complexity. If you really want to rename a file, delete the old one
and add the new one. If you want to rearrange the entire directory
heirarchy, just re-import the whole kit and kaboodle as a new tree.
But different folks have different demands; Chip apparently prizes
the ability to rename and rearrange regularly, to the point where
this limitation in CVS totally pisses him off, so badly that he
wants to warm his toes by a nice flamewar just to relax and
Good thing we don't have a monopoly situation here, where anybody is
gonna be forced to use CVS if they don't like it.