Re: renaming under CVS

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>--- "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> wrote:

>> CVS simply cannot ever support the kind of renames
>> some very few of you
>> continually whinning complainers seem to wish to
>> have without
>> introducing fundamentally backwards incompatible
>> changes to the
>> repository format.

>I'm starting to think about a scheme where CVS would
>go through a filename mapping if the usual archive
>file isn't found (I think this is how Meta-CVS works).
> The mapped archive file would only exist if there's
>been a rename or move.  I don't think such a scheme
>would _fundamentally_ break backwards compatibility.

I've given a lot of thought to this over the past few years, and
due to the way that locking is done in CVS (filesystem-based cookies),
a simple mapping mechanism will drive performance way down if a lot of
renaming is done.  This is because (in the general case) the mapping
mechanism will drive the creation of locks in many directories that
are not really the focus of the user's attention.

To keep it efficient enough to use, I think that the locking
mechanism needs to be removed from the filesystem and placed into
a process, which means losing the benefits of supporting local
mode (at least until the server modes become multi-threaded).

>> So, either start your own new project that has no
>> ties to past
>> repositories, or quit your bloody whining!

>I don't think any of my posts have been whining,
>bitching, moaning, complaining, or any of the sort.

Noel, you've certainly been far more professional and way less
abusive!!

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden