On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
[Shame on Christopher for breaking attributions]
> > > What is a repo-copy?
> > > A repo-copy (which is a short form of ``repository copy'') refers to
> > > the direct copying of files within the CVS repository.
> >
> > Yeah, I think that's what we discussed the last time the question came
> > up.
> >
> > It seems awfully wrongheaded to me. IMHO, the entire point of a CVS
> > repository is to store past states of your software, not only the
> > current state. Destroying the accurate representation of your historical
> > releases is a poor tradeoff for making it a little easier to find the
> > log entries for code that's been moved around. What's the point
> > of having history, if it's not accurate?
>
> Sounds like it's time to move to using 'arch':
I see this going down the road of a religious debate, and to prove the
point, I bring up BitKeeper:
http://www.bitkeeper.com
> http://www.regexps.com/#arch
>
> Supports everything that CVS doesn't, including rename events...
So does BitKeeper :)
> BTW - I'm not _seriously_ suggesting this change - but it would be cool,
> wouldn't it?
>
> People could start their own local branches which are part of the global
> namespace, easily merge them in, etc...
This seems quite pointless for PostgreSQL's development.
C'est la vie.
--
Dominic J. Eidson "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
