Re: CVS Update Behaviour

[Noel Yap]

--- "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> wrote:
> You really need to learn more about how CVS works
> internally.  If you
> had chosen CVS because RCS was insufficient for your
> needs then I think
> you would be happy not to have such a mapping layer.
>  CVS handles
> renames by way of removing and adding files.  No
> history is lost, but
> also no complications are introduced by such a
> mapping layer.

What complications are you implying?

> Implementing a mapping layer in CVS will hurt CVS. 
> It is impossible to
> implement such a mapping layer without destroying
> backwards
> compatability.  

Like I said before, one would be destroying forward
compatibility, not backward compatibility.  I see
nothing wrong with doing this, since if you need to
maintain forward compatibility, don't use the new
feature (ie "cvs mv").

Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com