[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: DIfferent workspace directories than repository...

From: Thornley, David
Subject: RE: DIfferent workspace directories than repository...
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:11:14 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:19 AM
> To: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: RE: DIfferent workspace directories than repository...
> >
> > Um, why do you need this specific layout in the 
> > repository?  It seems to me that the structure of 
> > the repository should be determined by the structure 
> > of what must be checked out.
> Some would disagree with you on that... myself included.  I 
> was hoping that I could get CVS to treat a directory as a 
> true project/first-class object.  Not just as a directory.
Nope; CVS does not treat directories as first-class objects,
and is never likely to.  Doing that would require a thorough
redesign, and would not be likely to be called CVS afterwards.

> Check out the Tigris project ( which is 
> addressing these kinds of issues that CVS apparently doesn't meet.
Subversion (the SCM project at Tigris) is indeed intended as a
thorough redesign of CVS, taking advantage of years of experience
with CVS and its quirks, and is intended as a CVS replacement.
Last I looked, it looked promising, but not something I have
immediate use for.

> Well, that answers my question.  It can be done, but with 
> manual kludges involved.  I was hoping to avoid such things.  
I do lots of things with Perl to make CVS easier to use.
I can get lots of the quirks papered over that way.  Overall,
I find that CVS's reliability, support of branching and concurrent
development, and cost make it an extremely useful tool, although
far from ideal.

reply via email to

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