> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: DIfferent workspace directories than repository...
>
>
> >
> > Um, why do you need this specific layout in the
> > repository? It seems to me that the structure of
> > the repository should be determined by the structure
> > of what must be checked out.
>
> Some would disagree with you on that... myself included. I
> was hoping that I could get CVS to treat a directory as a
> true project/first-class object. Not just as a directory.
>
Nope; CVS does not treat directories as first-class objects,
and is never likely to. Doing that would require a thorough
redesign, and would not be likely to be called CVS afterwards.
> Check out the Tigris project (www.tigris.org) which is
> addressing these kinds of issues that CVS apparently doesn't meet.
>
Subversion (the SCM project at Tigris) is indeed intended as a
thorough redesign of CVS, taking advantage of years of experience
with CVS and its quirks, and is intended as a CVS replacement.
Last I looked, it looked promising, but not something I have
immediate use for.
> Well, that answers my question. It can be done, but with
> manual kludges involved. I was hoping to avoid such things.
>
I do lots of things with Perl to make CVS easier to use.
I can get lots of the quirks papered over that way. Overall,
I find that CVS's reliability, support of branching and concurrent
development, and cost make it an extremely useful tool, although
far from ideal.
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
