Andy Glew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, I think the real problem is that CVS tags abd branches reside in
> the RCS data files, rather than in a separate file. There is no reason
> to do this; it is just plain WRONG. E.g. I may have read-only access to
> a library file, and I may want to indicate that I depend on a particular
> version by tagging - but to tag I need the ability to write the RCS
> file? WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! E.g. tagging is not an atomic action?
> WRONG!
> Once you place tag info in separate files, the performance cost goes
> down dramatically.
There are a variety of problems with the RCS file format (no checksums is
another one, plus tying any VC system using them strongly to a file
structure), but they've never been sufficient to warrant CVS giving up the
significant advantages of using RCS (seamless migration from RCS, ability
to extract data from a CVS repository using standard RCS tools, use of a
known and well-documented file format, all the existing parsing tools and
libraries for the format, etc.).
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
