--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 12:21:23 (-0800), > Noel Yap wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: renames under CVS > > > > If it's not necessary, then it's at least very > nice to > > have. > > How nice???? I've been trying to get actual metrics > about this for > years, and nobody but myself seems to care about > making actual > measurements -- y'all just want to argue for the > feature because you > seem to imagine that it would be "very nice to > have"!
First of all, I said, "If it's not necessary". The real question is "How necessary?", not "How nice?" Second, I think you cannot gather metrics (something objective) on such a subjective question. I can't think of a way to ask objectively the question. Can you? Or, if you think that the question is already objective, can you provide such a metric for it (eg how do we go about measuring it?). How about (as you've asked before): How often has one used such a feature when such a feature were available? Some of us have already answered this question. I, for one, have said that I do it quite often. How about: How many of us complain that such a feature doesn't exist in CVS? I think, as you've stated before, that this is one of the most requested lacking feature in CVS. > Every actual measurement of his procedure I've made > in my own work, and > that of those I've directly observed, shows that > it's a totally > unnecessary feature. Then, either your sampling of projects is extremely skewed or your metric was biased. Can you provide how you measured this? > > Quite often when I was using a tool that allowed > you > > to do it easily. Hardly ever under CVS 'cos it's > such > > a pain. > > How often?!?!?!?!?!? Facts and figures please, not > conjecture and allusion! I can't say that I actually counted. My guestimate would be about twice a month -- still way more than when using CVS. > > Also, your question is irrelevant. I know many > people > > who never look at the version history of a file; > > they're content with simply knowing the current > state > > of the file. Does this mean that a command like > "cvs > > log" is unnecessary? > > No, my question is extremely relevant. CVS is not > commercial feature-ware! So what? Should we then remove "cvs log" since many users I've seen don't use this feature? Noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
