On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 02:07:36PM -0800, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > If you have concrete suggestions or a good vision you wish to share on > the future of cvs, please share them here.
Mainly those import issues are what bothers me most. I'll try to come up with a concrete way of dealing with vendor sub-branches. Another way that would help me with that linux branch example would be cvs commit with an option similar to "cvs import -d". Instead of a import, a series of add/commit that preserves the file's original timestamp would do it. > Yes, I see in the source that branching only to a single level is > supported for vendor branches (ie, only digits and two "." characters > are allowing as the argument for the -b switch). I suppose this makes > sense as the deeper you go, the more complicated things become in the > creation of intermediate dead revisions. Well, I think cvs does a great (and complicated) job of managing versions and concurrent committing. Just by saying that one feature is complicated doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented, if enough people think it's important and useful. Best regards, Rodolfo Lima _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
