I believe the Attic is also used to store files that don't have a version on
the trunk (i.e. a file that was added on a branch).
Again you could question whether this is strictly necessary, but also again
it could be argued that it makes things easier/more convenient overall.
Also, don't forget how this looks to someone who is responsible for
administration of a repository. The idea of the Attic provides a nice
conceptual encapsulation for these kinds of circumstances. Someday, CVS may
be good enough to allow the repository to attain "black box" status, but I
don't think it's there yet.
-Greg
-----Original Message-----
Mike Castle writes:
>
> Is that Attic really even necessary?
What's your definition of "necessary"? It makes some things simpler and
other things more difficult. It's certainly less necessary than it was
before the current death support was added to CVS.
> CVS is doing two things when you delete a file: Moves it to
the attic, and
> creates a new version with the state of "dead."
>
> Obviously moving the file isn't enough. And if one
ressurects the file,
> I believe it stays in Attic anyway, with a newer state no longer dead.
No, a ressurected file is (supposed to be) moved out of the Attic.
(There are some bugs that prevent this from happening in some unusual
circumstances.)
> So, why move a file into the Attic at all? Just mark them as
dead, and
> leave it be. Might simplify code in some parts (of course,
wouldn't rip
> out all Attic handling, for repositories already using it),
but if that
> could eventually be pulled too.
The idea of moving dead files to the Attic is so that you don't even
have to look at them in most cases. Not doing it would simplify some
code and complicate other code; whether the net result would be better
or worse, I cannot say.
-Larry Jones
I think your train of thought is a runaway. -- Calvin's Mom
