--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps what I can now do intuitively is hard for > someone else, but if I > learned to do it intuitively then pretty much anyone > can learn it too. > I'm no superman and I don't believe I have a > photographic memory or > anything fancy like that either.
You need to get out and work with a broader set of people. From my experience, script-proficient developers are a rarity. Taking into account the reality, you and probably most on this list are supermen. > Perhaps someone who doesn't understand the basics of > what's going on > with version control might have more trouble, but > they're basically lost > on even the most simple commands until they get some > fundamental > understanding anyway. Once they get the basics > under control then > tracking history across renames is only a tiny step, > not anything > "difficult"! You're defining version control to be CVS, again. You need to remember that there are tools that version control renames transparently to the user. But I understand how you can forget such a thing given that you don't use such tools. > It seems perfectly simple and very quick when I do > it. Perhaps you > should try it: > > cvs log newfile.c | less > > [[ read along until you get to the end and see: - > moved > oldfile.c to newfile.c]] > > cvs log oldfile.c | less > > [[ and so on.... ]] 1. This doesn't work in the general case (eg when resurrections occur). 2. This is hardly transparent to the user. > Maybe someone with difficulty typing commands would > find this > "difficult" because of the extra typing, but they > would presumably find > using any part of the command-line interface to be > similarly "difficult" > and should probably be using a mouse-driven > front-end or some such. No, the "difficult" part is parsing the log output to find the move comments (assuming the comments are correct to begin with). > So automate the process with a wrapper that doesn't > make mistakes!!!!!! > > Said wrapper is already quoted below! And be sure to break the CVS model by serializing development while you're at it. > > If being able to deal transparently with file > renames and moves is > > important to one, then CVS is not the proper tool. > > Well we do agree on that for sure -- but I assert > it's never going to be > a terribly important requirement in any usage domain > where CVS is > otherwise the proper tool. Good, so we're in agreement, "CVS isn't ideal under refactoring or when using XP." > > That's actually kind of sad. Why don't you put the > script(s) in the > > contrib directory, and point people at it when the > topic comes up, > > rather than expending the effort arguing and > re-writing the script? > > Because they're too simple and too lame to ever > worry about remembering! And it's much simpler to argue continuously about it? > Yup, that's pretty much it. It sure is easy isn't > it! You need some > more mechanism around it if you want to use it as a > general wrapper > (i.e. to enforce its usage), and of course there are > the other bits that > should be self obvious if you want "log" and "diff" > and such to work > across renames. Since anyone can always call CVS directly, how can you possibly enforce its usage (other than through policies)? > Such a feature could trivially be > built into the many > front-ends too (which are usually literally > "wrappers"), such as PCL-CVS > (which is the one I use), or WinCVS, etc. What if some valid comments happen to have the move comments in them and the file wasn't really moved? Using comments for this is a hack at best. > I've never actually written a script to do it > because it's brain-dead > easy and obvious how to do it manually, and like I > said I can only > remember having to do a diff manually across a > rename once in 8 yrs! If it's so obvious, why on Earth do you think this subject comes up so often? Obviously, it's not obvious. > I did think briefly of writing rename support for > PCL-CVS, but it's just > too infrequently used to be worth the effort. Whereas if CVS directly supported this, one wouldn't have to add this functionality to each wrapper out there. > If/when someone goes to the effort of produceing > working code regardless > of how needed it is then perhaps it'll be added to > the appropriate > public shared version of wherever it best fits (eg. > a script in contrib > or a new lisp function in PCL-CVS, or whatever). > Until that time the > manual way is trivial, and quick, and it works 100%. No, it doesn't. It's not robust. A robust way wouldn't use comments, but use something completely internal to CVS (eg filename mapping). Noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
