>--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods: >[ On Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 01:59:20 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: rename in cvs] >> >> And not only do you lose the ability to get a file's entire version >> history with a single "cvs log",
>That is not a loss -- it is a gain. You have it backwards. I gain the requirement of having to type multiple "cvs log" or "cvs rlog" commands, after figuring out every place a file has lived during its lifetime. I gain the requirement of carefully scrutinizing the output of each of those commands to determine which revisions contributed to my working copy. In other words, I gain a lot. But I see no benefit here. >> you also have added to a file's revision >> history all of the unwanted stuff from a previous incarnation that was >> renamed away. >Well, yes, that's a bit of a bug, but we've discussed the obvious and >very easy solution several times in the past By trying to divine linked lists from comments that the users are supposed to remember to type? "Unreliable" is a euphemism. >> Defending the ambiguity of the histories of logically different files that >> happen to share a path at one time or another, and the fragmentation of >> a file's entire version history is nonsensical. >Since you've never really understood how CVS manages change and how >filenames are used within CVS, this strange is not unsurprising. I've always completely understood how CVS manages changes. I've also always understood that the design is badly broken. >--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs