[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: NT porting gotcha

From: Brian Behlendorf <brian_at_collab.net>
Date: 2000-08-13 04:10:34 CEST

On 12 Aug 2000, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Zack Weinberg <zack@wolery.cumb.org> writes:
> > There's tools out there that assume they know the contents of a "CVS"
> > subdirectory. (ditto "RCS", "SCCS", etc.) Which isn't to say that we
> > shouldn't allow it - just that it mustn't be the default, because it
> > _will_ break stuff.
> +1, IMHO. "CVS" implies that this is, well, CVS. Which it's not, so
> confusion will result when people try to use CVS or CVS-related tools
> with it.

Good point, both of you. What kind of data do we need to keep on the
client side, and how is that different than what CVS tracks? If there is
no difference, or those differences are largely cosmetic, could we use the
same client-side-state-tracking format as used by CVS? E.g., the root in
CVS/Root, the repository in CVS/Repository, and metadata about each file
in CVS/Entries? Of course things like version numbers would be different,
but that's cosmetic. I'm not too worried about people accidentially using
old CVS tools, because presumable the actual Repository string will be
something it doesn't understand and will fail.

Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:06 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.