On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andreas Krey <a.k...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 15:14:58 +0000, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> ...
>> We both know that the CVS history omits important data, and that the
>> history is mutable, etc.  So there are lots of hypothetical histories
>> that do not contradict CVS.  But some things are recorded unambiguously
>> in the CVS history, like
>> * The contents at any tag or the tip of any branch (i.e., what is in the
>> working tree when you check it out).
> Except that the tags/branches may be made in a way that can't
> be mapped onto any commit/point of history otherwise exported,
> with branches that are done on parts of the trees first, or
> likewise tags.

Yeah, that's what I remember too.  It is perfectly fine in CVS to add
a tag to a file at a much later date than the rest of the tree. And it
happened too ("oh, I didn't have directory support/some-os checked out
when I tagged the release yesterday! let me check it out and add the
tag, nevermind that the branch has moved forward in the interim...").

I would add the long history of "cvs repository manipulation". Bad,
ugly stuff, but it happened in every major project I've seen. Mozilla,
X.org, etc.

TBH I am very glad that Michael cares deeply about the correctness,
and it leads to a much better tool. No doubt.

When discussing it with end users, I do think we have to be honest and
say that there's a fair chance that the output will not be perfect...
because what is in CVS is rather imperfect when you look at it closely
(which users aren't usually doing).


 -  ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 ~ http://docs.moodle.org/en/User:Martin_Langhoff
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to