In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Sander wrote: >>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[ On Thursday, October 11, 2001 at 23:12:44 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ] >>> Subject: Re: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: rename in cvs] >>> >>> >--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods: >>> >Let me repeat: You DO NOT want or need to have "cvs log BAR" list >>> >changes in the file "FOO". To want that is illogical. It is >>> >unnecessary! >>> >>> You do, if the version history of FOO is part of the history of BAR, >>> having become that way by way of a reorganization of the project. > >>No, it's not. That's a figment of your imagination -- not the reality >>of what CVS is doing. > >You are right. But I think the point we're trying to make is that CVS >is doing the wrong thing, i.e. it is broken.
Not really. CVS does not support renaming. In that sense, its version management is incomplete. Let's not confuse incompleteness with incorrectness. Deleting a file and making a new one with the same contents is something other than renaming. It's not broken renaming. It only looks broken when we call it renaming; calling it renaming doesn't make it renaming. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
