Jon Stevens wrote: > > on 2/23/01 2:13 PM, "Federico Barbieri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I guess it's not the standard procedure but I really don't care about > > all the cvs history. One of the reason is that with the split history > > became quite meaningless. Avalon as it was a year ago is so different > > from jakarta-avalon that it makes more sense to me to just use releases > > as historical db. > > > > what's so wrong with this? > > > > Fede > > The world is MUCH larger than just what you happen to care about Fede. >
It's not that I don't care about the world jon! I just think having the history of cornerstone and phoenix in the jakarta-avalon cvs is wrong. If you roll back you access a version that has nothing to do with the current code. > The fact of the matter is that other people might care about it. You are > doing open development and you have absolutely no clue as to who else might > be depending on your software. > > By screwing up the history on the files, you might as well just change > methods without deprecating them as well....because who cares? You certainly > don't. FYI I almost started a flamewar becouse of some "unecessary deprecation" that whould screw up other people work. I DO CARE about other people work! > > One of the primary purposes of CVS is to keep a history of changes on files. > How can you simply ignore that? > I may be wrong but again jakarta-avalon is a brand new product. java.apache.framework history has few or nothing to do with current code. So copying th history in the new CVS id IMHO wrong. It whould be nice thou to keep the old CVS available for a while for those who relay on that code. Fede > -jon
