[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Kernel SCM: When does CVS fall down where it REALLY matters?
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:52:38PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 05:38:27PM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> >
> > 6) Ability to do sane archival and renaming of directories.
> > CVS doesn't even know what a directory is.
> How about sane renaming of plain old files?
> For a laugh, read the instructions on how to "rename" CVS files.
> Hint: "Rename" is not the correct word.
> $ mv old new
> $ cvs remove old
> $ cvs add new
> $ cvs commit -m "Renamed old to new" old new
> Gee, that looks like adding a new file to me. Upon reading further,
> that is exactly what this "rename" operation is doing. There are two
> other ways to rename a file in CVS, one of which is described as
> "dangerous" and the other as having "drawbacks." References:
> Note that the way to rename a file in in BitKeeper is:
> $ bk mv old new
> No danger, no drawbacks, no hand editing of history files.
> I strongly recommend that anyone attempting to make CVS a viable
> replacement for BitKeeper start out by actually using BitKeeper.
> You're so used to being crippled by CVS that you don't even know what
> you're missing.


They're not trying to make cvs fit into the space bk lives in now, they're
trying to take the cvs *replacements* (arch, subversion, etc) and make them
usable (they probably are close now, but not as good as bk) for kernel
development requirements.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:0.094 / U:6.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site