"Arnaud Le Hors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jason E. Stewart" wrote:
> >
> > "Murray Cumming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> ...
> > > Actually, it *would* be better to just rename src to xercesc and stop
> > > copying the headers into include.
> >
> > That does seem like an elegant solution.
> >
> > One drawback is that it does mean mucking with the CVS repo, though
> > (unless you want to remove and then add all the files back under
> > xercesc -- Yuccchhh).
> >
> > I would definately vote for this approach over the include/xercesc
>
> I like that too. I don't have a pb with "mucking with the CVS repo".
> I've done it several times. It's not ideal but there is no good solution
> anyway. CVS is just not good at that type of operation.
[snip of the horrors of CVS repo maintenance ]
Ahhh, if only subversion were here today ...
jas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
