[ On Friday, May 5, 2000 at 09:55:20 (-0500), Dave Sherohman wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: "cvs checkout -c" again
>
> On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 11:29:17AM -0600, Win32 M$ wrote:
> > Agree, it should. Or, should we have 'cvs ls' and 'cvs cd' and 'cvs pwd' to
> > "walk" the tree in the repository?
>
> I like that solution. (We already have 'cvs rm', after all...)
Don't forget that "cvs rm" is a second-class sub-command -- it's just an
alias for "cvs remove". If a repository list command is implemented it
should be called "cvs list" and *maybe* with an alias "cvs ls".
BTW, I don't think "cvs cd" and "cvs pwd" are either useful or easy to
implement in any sensible and safe way. CVS isn't a process that sticks
around like a shell -- it's effectively stateless and making it stateful
in one scenario would be: a) hard; b) error-prone, and c) confusing.
> On the one hand, I can see the security (albeit purely by obscurity) factor
> in not allowing people to find out about projects other than by being
> explicitly told about them (either by direct contact ("Hey, Joe - grab the
> doc project!") or by putting them in CVSROOT/modules). On the other hand,
> though, there's the nuisance factor of having to do the telling.
The modules file is sufficient for anyone who uses it. Those who don't
use modules exclusively (naughty users! ;-) and who use remote
repositories would definitely benefit from a "cvs list" command.
It would be nice to have a way to get "descriptions" (eg. comments) from
the modules file without having to check it out (i.e. with "cvs co -c",
which currently isn't really a "cat" replacement).
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
