[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.03.03 15:52:50
>[ On Friday, March 3, 2000 at 09:19:44 (-0500), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: removing the need for "cvs add file" to contact the server....
>>
>>
>> OK, then, why do you say it's essential. Also, my poll says otherwise.
Noone
>> has responded to my poll saying that they agree that "cvs add empty-hier"
should
>> not create CVS admin directories (I suppose I can count you as one person who
>> agrees with it). One person was neutral. Two disagree with it.
>
>You didn't ask that question! Your poll results are irrelevant to it!
Here's what was posted in the past:
>>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>I want to take a poll with regards to the following issue:
>
>>"cvs add" must specially handle empty directory hierarchies such that no CVS
>>admin subdirectories are created within them. (I've tried to be as unbiased
>>with this statement as I can).
>
>[ On Wednesday, March 1, 2000 at 10:25:26 (-0500), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: removing the need for "cvs add file" to contact the server....
>>
>>
>> The "cvs add empty-hier" must create CVS admin subdirectories. The following
>> "cvs ci" should create the directories within the repo (just as the current
"cvs
>> ci" should do today).
As you can see, my poll had to do with the first part of the statement (ie "cvs
add empty-hier" must create CVS admin subdirectories). It is not irrelevant.
>Since you're not supposed to even look at the CVS administrative
>directory its presence or absence is effectively invisible to you.
>
>> 1. How is the creation/non-creation of the CVS admin directory invisible?
>> 2. It is of concern since this visible discrepancy will confuse people.
>
>Get over it!
Greg, you're the one who doesn't want to confuse people by supposedly leading
them to think that CVS version controls directories. I'd rather have them not
get confused due to inconsistent behaviour brought about by some premature,
unfounded "optimisation".
Email is a written form of communication, noone can possibly get any value from
posts such as, "Get over it!"
>> > You are
>> >not allowed to play with CVS' administrative files -- they are only for
>> >the use of CVS.
>>
>> But their existence does tell you how CVS will function within those
>> directories.
>
>Only by accidental inferal. If CVS had chosen the slightly less
>portable option of calling this directory ".CVS" instead then it would
>have been much more invisible.... Actually trying the command is a far
>more reliable a way to find out how it will function.
Whether or not this knowledge is gained by inference, knowledge is still there
(.CVS wouldn't hide anything in my environment). It's exactly the same as
.cvsignore. The file is "hidden" the way you suggest hiding the CVS admin
subdirectory, but it's still there for those who wish to derive some knowledge
from it.
>> 1. No future effort is saved if the ignore facilities are properly used.
>
>This may be true but you should well know by now that one cannot
>guarantee the right ignore lists are in place at all times, and
>particularly not at the time a "cvs add" might be done.
The tool shouldn't guarantee these kinds of things. This is a user workspace
and repo configuration problem, not a tool problem. Users have the option of
creating ~/.cvsignore files or adding per-directory .cvsignore files. The cvs
admin has the option of adding CVSROOT/cvsignore. If users want to misuse the
tool, let them.
>> 2. Beware of premature optimisation.
>
>in this case turning my own argument against me isn't going to work! ;-)
Again, no value in statements that're not justified.
>> The ignore facilities are sufficient for this optimisation. No extra effort
on
>> the part of "cvs add" are necessary.
>
>No, they are not, no matter how much you or I might want thom to be.
>This is not a single-faceted problem witn only one solution.
Why not? I think we've both shown how the ignore facilities are enough for the
optimisation you wish. Furthermore, they don't prevent users from "cvs add
empty-hier" to create CVS admin subdirectories in their private workspaces.
IOW, it doesn't affect anyone else, why not let them do it? Again, if you say
they'll start thinking directories are versioned, educate them.
>In any case why are you continuing to belabour a point which is moot?
It's not moot 'cos your "optimisation" is unnecessary and will actually cause
more processing than if it wasn't there (specially for the shops that use the
ignore facilities properly). So, in the end, if your "optimisation" happens,
CVS will cater to those not using its features properly while punishing those
that do.
Noel
