On Tue, October 23, 2007 5:34 pm, Christian Seberino wrote: > > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > >> Agreed. The proper response was to refactor CVS and then start >> replacing subsystems. >> >> The problem is that no developers *ever* want to do that. >> >> Refactoring requires that you understand the old code, write tests, >> refactor while gaining no new functionality, and only *then* pull out >> bad subsystems and redo them. >> >> That's a whole lot of unfun coding. > > How do you know refactoring CVS code and understanding it would be easier > and faster than doing a clean rewrite with the new design decisions you > want? You seem to take this as an axiom.... sure you would never want to > rewrite an OS on your free time but this is "just" a SCM. Maybe no one > wants to do this unfun work for a reason. > > Chris > >
Not to butt in, but I had the impression that cvs (not a true c/s) was such a rat's nest that the only thing worth retaining was its interface design. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
