Re: public CVS archive

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 29,  2:28pm, Ollivier Robert wrote:
} Subject: Re: public CVS archive
}
} As long as you don't have a myriad of branches, CVS is fine. Having to
} branches, one for 3.0.x and the other for 3.1.x is bearable. It makes
} merging easier.

Actually, in this particular case it makes merging more difficult.  The
directory structure has changed in 3.1.x (for example, all the zle_* files
have moved to the Src/Zle subdir; in 3.0.x they're in Src) and bits and
pieces of things have moved as well (for example, bin_fg() has moved from
builtin.c to jobs.c, though both files are still in Src; other things have
moved from builtin.c to files in new directory Src/Builtins).

CVS is particularly poor at tracking entire file renames -- you have to
remove the file from one directory and add it in another -- and doesn't
help any more than any other source-code-control system when it comes to
whole functions moved from one file to another.

For many files, therefore, its extremely misleading to try to merge from
3.1.x<-->3.0.x using CVS's merge capability.  Either you can't do it at
all, or you end up with tracts of missing (in the 3.1-->3.0 direction) or
duplicated (3.0-->3.1) code in some files.  It just isn't worth it; it's
easier to generate patches and then figure out which files to apply them
to.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com