Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:00:18 -0800 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: 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: > > http://www.gnu.org/manual/cvs-1.9/html_node/cvs_66.html > > 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. >
No.
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 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/
|  |