--- Noel Yap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I was thinking that, in the long run, it'll > improve performance. Let's say that all filenames are > now mapped to their corresponding archive files, then > there's really need to create one lock file for the > entire module much as CC locks the entire VOB. In > fact, if backwards compatibility weren't an issue (eg > if it's a new repository), this behaviour could be the > default.
Backward compatibility is good up until the point it holds things back. If CVS can be changed/resigned in a way to allow support directory versioning and merge tracking, I think that those improvements an important enough to make an exception to the hardline (and very good to have) backward compatibility rule. Call it CVS ver. 2.0. Why can't CVS have two supported releases in parallel? Mark __________________________________________________ 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
