On Feb 5, 2005, at 12:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 18:23:08 (-0300), Alexandre Augusto Drummond Barroso wrote: ]Subject: RE: Renaming (was Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics)
I agree with you. I think the result from an annotate would be completely different when using a "move" operation instead of traditional "mv-remove-add" operation.
You are thinking of, or wishing for, something at a higher level than a
simple "cvs annotate". (and "annotate" is the wrong word for what you
mean, especially in the context of CVS where it has an explicit meaning)
The idea behind using a wrapper script to implement "cvsmove" is that it
would create predictable, parsable, log entries.
This would make it much more reliable for another _external_ history
analysis tool to decipher what was intended when it sees that a file was
removed from one location then another file with identical content was
added to a new location.
Gee, Greg, how much version control capability do you really want to offload from CVS?
--
Paul Sander | "Lets stick to the new mistakes and get rid of the old
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ones" -- William Brown
_______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list Info-cvs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
