--- "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 13:39:35 (-0800), > Noel Yap wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour > > > > This is another one of those "CVS is perfect for > what > > it does. It's not broken. And don't pay any > > attention to those other tools behind the > curtain!" > > stances. It doesn't hold water. > > If it doesn't hold water then what are you doing on > this side of the > curtain? Get the heck on the other side and stay > there!
To warn those buying into the "CVS is perfect under refactorings" thinking. > CVS is not commercial feature-ware! If you want > that then go to the > other side of the curtain and stay there! Versioning file renames/moves is a version control feature. CVS is a version control tool (that's supposed to be concurrent). CVS doesn't handle file renames/moves in a concurrent manner. Therefore, CVS isn't perfect for what it's supposed to do, it's broken. > > Yeah, so what? The point is that the tool > _supports_ > > merges. It clearly doesn't when it comes to > renames. > > (I consider patch and emacs to be outside of the > > tool). > > I think you've again confused "support" with > "assist", or something like > that. CVS doesn't do perfect merges -- and it never > claimed it could. > CVS gets you started, but you're in the driver's > seat for finishing them > off and if that means manually doing merges for > renamed files then > that's what you've got to do. Get with the program! Yes, I mean "assist". CVS doesn't do perfect merges under conflict scenarios. File renames do not constitute conflicts. 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
