[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: vc-do-command: doc/code inconsistency

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: vc-do-command: doc/code inconsistency
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:51:55 +0200

> From: Andre Spiegel <address@hidden>
> Date: 11 Nov 2000 01:11:48 +0100
> > While I'm at it: why is the file-relative-name used in that function,
> > rather than putting the expanded file name in squeezed?
> Probably because one of the backends refused to work otherwise (CVS is
> a likely candidate).

Very likely.  I was told several times by a couple of CVS maintainers
that CVS doesn't treat file names as file names, it treats them as
module names.  The fact that most users (myself included) tend to
think that "cvs ci foo/bar" refers to the file `pwd`/foo/bar is one of
the major reasons for many counter-intuitive aspects of CVS's
behavior, like the subtle differences between "cvs co" and "cvs up"
(do you even understand why do we have both co and up commands?).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]