--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You haven't been at all successful at avoiding > double-posting either.
Sorry, I've been trying the best I can. I don't know why, but it only happens when responding to your emails. Since [EMAIL PROTECTED] doesn't appear anywhere in the CC, I can only guess that it's 'cos your replacing it with [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Huh? Sure it does -- though of course you need to > modify the algorithm > above to get rid of the "to the end" part -- but > then humans are usually > pretty good at figuring out such implications on > their own. Humans are also very good at overlooking things <sarcasm> but, oh yeah, that's not CVS's fault.</sarcasm> > > 2. This is hardly transparent to the user. > > It's bloody well not supposed to be "transparent"! > You _WANT_ them to > see the rename and understand its implications! Such things should be handled via developer communication, not the tool. Isn't that /your/ motto? I mean, gimme a break, you expect a developer to understand the /implications/ of a rename based on a comment that says, "renamed foo to bar"? > The comments are correct because you've required > that your developers > use a front-end or wrapper. Right!?!?!?! And how is this enforced? Oh, right, by policing and punishing those that make mistakes. > Humans are incredibly good at parsing written words. > However even > computers can discern such patterns with ease. This isn't true and, by your own admission from an off-topic, tangential thread, you're not too knowledgable about human psychology which is what governs humans parsing written words. I've seen examples that support this fact. > > > Because they're too simple and too lame to ever > > > worry about remembering! > > > > And it's much simpler to argue continuously about > it? > > it's no harder, and a whole lot more fun! It sounds to me like you're more aggravated than having fun. > CVS simply cannot ever support the kind of renames > some very few of you > continually whinning complainers seem to wish to > have without > introducing fundamentally backwards incompatible > changes to the > repository format. I'm starting to think about a scheme where CVS would go through a filename mapping if the usual archive file isn't found (I think this is how Meta-CVS works). The mapped archive file would only exist if there's been a rename or move. I don't think such a scheme would _fundamentally_ break backwards compatibility. > So, either start your own new project that has no > ties to past > repositories, or quit your bloody whining! I don't think any of my posts have been whining, bitching, moaning, complaining, or any of the sort. 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