I wouldn't do anything that would interfere with the ability to simply check out and rebuild an old version. This is a central feature of version control software.
I also think it's generally a bad idea to mess with the repository behind the software's back. You have to make assumptions about the behavior of the software. While that's safer with open-source, because you can in theory know exactly how the software operates, in practice it's hard to grok *any* complex system. Sooner or later someone's going to get bitten; with an open-source project like Xerces, I think it's kindest to those who follow to play by the rules. That said, I'd propose the following hack, which I think is *slightly* less heinous, for CVS experts to consider: create the new directory structure, complete with file members, then *copy* the existing archives over the new ones. This wastes disk space, but: - Allows easily rebuilding any version. - Keeps each module's entire history intact in the new directory structure. I think this has been proposed before, but I don't remember whether it was thought a good idea or not. One consideration is how much disk space would be wasted. Can someone find out how much space is used by the CVS repository for files to be relocated? (Actually, I'm not sure why it matters much, when disks are a few bucks per gigabyte. Even 10000RPM UltraSCSI disks are about $15/GB.) -----Original Message----- From: Michael Huedepohl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 9:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plan for Xerces-C++ 1.6 No, the directory name will be the same (new) name for current and for older revisions. I think normally this won't disturb, because in most cases you will revert only to an older version of one or a few single files - but if you want to revert to the old strategy (in this case: no more using the sane_include patch) you will of course have to rename the directory in the repository back manually again. Jesse Pelton wrote: > > So, if the directories are just renamed at a shell prompt, CVS will still be > able to check out, say, version 1.3, and put files in the correct (old) > locations? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Huedepohl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 8:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Plan for Xerces-C++ 1.6 > > We did this several times (renaming a directory in CVS) - > mainly with the same reasons (don't want to split the history, > avoid removing and creating large directories - double space!) > and we encountered not any serious problem. > The only point to put attention on is concurrent usage of the CVS > around the time when the directory is moved: The directories being > checked out may become invalid, leading to the need of removing > the directory at the client and checking it out again. So all > modifications should be committed before renaming the directory > - and this concerns only those users with write access. > > Jesse Pelton wrote: > > > > I don't use CVS, but with the version control systems I have used, > directly > > manipulating file system objects (renaming or deleting files or > directories) > > used by the VC software is asking for horrendous problems. One of the most > > important benefits of VC systems is the ability to rebuild old versions, > and > > this benefit is generally lost if you go behind the system's back to make > > such changes. This may or may not be the case with CVS, but no such change > > should be made unless we're certain it's benign. Jason's approach seems > > sound to me, but again, I don't have significant experience using CVS. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Renji Panicker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:12 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: CVS: RE: Plan for Xerces-C++ 1.6 > > > > I have found that renaming the sub-directory in my cvsroot does the trick. > I > > don't kno how safe it is supposed to be, but I've not had a problem with > it > > so far. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason E. Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 1:49 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Plan for Xerces-C++ 1.6 > > > > "Tinny Ng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > Remember that this will require a cvs change. We need to rename the > src > > directory > > > > to xercesc. Some cvs experts gave some advice about that at the time. > > > > > > > > > > Since CVS cannot rename, the cleanest way is to create everything as new > > directory > > > and new files, and then delete the old directory "src". And as far as I > > know, the > > > deleted directory information is still stored in CVS "Attic" and is > still > > > accessible. Thus we can still access old history log if needed. > > > > As long as you mean 'remove' as in 'cvs remove' then you're > > correct. The real advantage to doing it that way is all the old tags > > still work, so that you can check out historical copies. The (slight) > > disadvantage is that all the history that should be associated with > > the file is in two separate places. > > > > It's unfortunate that CVS forces you to remove a file and then re-add > > it when it should just have a 'move' command. Luckily it seems that > > subversion (subversion.tigris.org) will be ready for general use > > pretty soon. I've got a couple of test repositories using the latest > > alpha of subversion and I'm pretty happy. > > > > jas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
