[ On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 00:27:17 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: renaming under CVS
>
> CVS is a standalone system, and it's merely an implementation detail
> that the containers it uses to store the revision history that it
> maintains happen to have a high degree of compatibility with RCS.
Please try to actually _read_ the documentation. Please try to read the
source code.
There are really only two things "different" with RCS in the way CVS
manipulates a repository, and it's been clearly shown by others that
they're not even in any way fundamentally incompatible with future use
of the repostitory by RCS alone. Indeed this is by design. CVS is
quite simply just a front-end for RCS. You could re-implement it
entirely as shell scripts again and you would not be able to tell the
difference except by measuring the speed of the implementation.
> So the RCS files are not for human consumption... (Well, *their locations*
> aren't, but if you can't find 'em, you can't use 'em...)
No, they're not. But that does not change the fact that CVS is merely
an RCS front-end. The reason they must be left alone by humans when CVS
is in use is because you can't have it both ways at the same time.
There is no conflict though if you stop using CVS and then use RCS
alone (and indeed you can even move back to CVS after that if you change
your mind again).
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
