Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone
Daniel Phillips (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:00:48 +0100
On Thu 13 Mar 03 01:52, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <email@example.com> said:
> > On Wed 12 Mar 03 04:47, Horst von Brand wrote:
> > > ...You need to focus on changes to files,
> > > not files. I.e., file appeared/dissapeared/changed name/was edited by
> > > altering lines so and so.
> > It's useful to make the distinction that "file
> > appeared/dissapeared/changed name" are changes to a directory object,
> > while "was edited by altering lines so and so" is a change to a file
> > object...
> I don't think so. As the user sees it, a directory is mostly a convenient
> labeled container for files. You think in terms of moving files around, not
> destroying one and magically creating an exact copy elsewhere (even if
> mv(1) does exactly this in some cases). Also, this breaks up the operation
> "mv foo bar/baz" into _two_ changes, and this is wrong as the file loses
> its revision history.
No, that's a single change to one directory object.
> > ...then this part gets much easier.
> ... by screwing it up. This is exactly one of the problems noted for CVS.
CVS doesn't have directory objects.
Does anybody have a convenient mailing list for this design discussion?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/