Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | | Subject | Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone | | Date | Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:00:48 +0100 |
| |
On Thu 13 Mar 03 01:52, Horst von Brand wrote: > Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de> said: > > On Wed 12 Mar 03 04:47, Horst von Brand wrote: > > > ...You need to focus on changes to files, > > > not files. I.e., file appeared/dissapeared/changed name/was edited by > > > altering lines so and so. > > > > It's useful to make the distinction that "file > > appeared/dissapeared/changed name" are changes to a directory object, > > while "was edited by altering lines so and so" is a change to a file > > object... > > I don't think so. As the user sees it, a directory is mostly a convenient > labeled container for files. You think in terms of moving files around, not > destroying one and magically creating an exact copy elsewhere (even if > mv(1) does exactly this in some cases). Also, this breaks up the operation > "mv foo bar/baz" into _two_ changes, and this is wrong as the file loses > its revision history.
No, that's a single change to one directory object.
> > ...then this part gets much easier. > > ... by screwing it up. This is exactly one of the problems noted for CVS.
CVS doesn't have directory objects.
Does anybody have a convenient mailing list for this design discussion?
Regards,
Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |