At 09:12 AM 11/25/2002, Cliff Woolley wrote: >On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote: > >> We can make a duplicate of the httpd-2.0 CVS module and call it >> httpd-2.1 or whatever the heck we want, and keep the history. Why do >> we have to lose the history? >> >> -1 to losing the history > >That's what I'm sayin. Ditto.
I'm confused. Duplicating cvs means we no longer track cvs history of 2.0 within the 2.1 or whatever repository. We would freeze 2.0 in time and lose future history. That was Fred's point, and as I agree with the issue he raised, I'm moderately against two repositories. This whole 'cvs branches are evil' smacks of FUD. Certainly some operations are less than optimal. But certainly things have improved since folks experiences with branch-related bugs soured them to the concept. Bill
