>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Tuesday, February 26, 2002 at 06:19:33 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: renaming under CVS >> >> 2. The internal representation of the repository is >> just that, internal, which means no other tool should >> rely on it being a certain way. This has been further >> supported by the fact that CVS has internalised the >> RCS code.
>That's just not true at all. CVS _is_ an RCS front-end, regardless of >how it invokes the RCS code (or even whether or not the RCS code it uses >is the same or different than the "original" RCS implementation). CVS is a standalone system, and it's merely an implementation detail that the containers it uses to store the revision history that it maintains happen to have a high degree of compatibility with RCS. (Okay, so at one time it actually used RCS. It could just as well have used SCCS or something else entirely just as well.) Hey wait a minute! In another closely related thread: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ On Sunday, February 24, 2002 at 22:09:31 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ] > Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour >> Where is the *location of the RCS file* recorded in the comment? >You don't need to know the location of the RCS files -- that's internal >to CVS and not for human consumption. It's of no use in a client-server >invocation in any case. So the RCS files are not for human consumption... (Well, *their locations* aren't, but if you can't find 'em, you can't use 'em...) Which way is it, Greg? Or is it okay to have the repository open for your purposes, and closed for all others? >--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
