On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 07:06, Manfred Schuler wrote: > Mike, > > I did _NOT_ at all want to criticize the staff at SF. > I know about them only what I see on the list, so I'm > not in a position to judge how they do their job.
Manfred, I apologize for the tone of my last message. It was inappropriate. Sorry. > I think I didn't express clearly what I mean. > > It is meant as a principle when working on large projects: > _NEVER_ change anything that is correctly checked in > > I will give you an example of what I mean: > > In version 1.0 of package xxx you have 2 script files: > scripta and scriptb > One line in scripta is > source scriptb > > Later you decide scriptb is not a good name and you change the name > to scriptc and the line in scripta to: > source scriptc > The version 1.1 of the package xxx consists now of the files > scripta and scriptc. > Now you rename scriptb in your CVS tree to scriptc. > > A user who wants to checkout version 1.0 gets a problem because > scripta requires scriptb, but someone who dosen't know about > the rename, doesn't know where to get scriptb. > > Even when the label is moved with the files, you get > scripta and scriptc on checkout, but the package won't work > because of the wrong filename. > > You see, when you rename files in CVS, you get nonfunctional old > versions. Ah, now I see. :-) I hadn't considered this sequence of actions. I believe interdependent files that require movement/renaming are candidates for branches. Would branching the sample above be an appropriate course of action? -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek PC Mods, Computing goodies, cases & more http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
