From owner-cvs-CVSROOT  Mon Jan 16 18:37:35 1995
Return-Path: cvs-CVSROOT-owner
Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id SAA23813 for cvs-CVSROOT-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 18:37:35 -0800
Received: from precipice.Shockwave.COM (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA23804; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 18:37:31 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.Shockwave.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA02834; Mon, 16 Jan 1995 17:23:57 -0800
Message-Id: <199501170123.RAA02834@precipice.Shockwave.COM>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk, CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, ache@astral.msk.su,
        cvs-CVSROOT@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:36:46 +1100."
             <199501170036.LAA19321@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 17:23:57 -0800
From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com>
Sender: cvs-CVSROOT-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


  From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
  Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules
  >At some point, we're going to have to remove groff from the cvs tree.
  
  And rename ngroff to groff?  Both will confuse cvs.
  
  >  I guess the only way to do this is to remove all the current files and the
>>n
  >  import into the same area of the tree. That's what I did when I ditched th
>>e
  >  old libforms and imported a completely new one although I admit that
  >  was a much simpler job. The principle's the same though.
  
  Removing the current files makes little difference to the size of the cvs
  tree.  It just keeps the junk in the Attic.  It does reduce the size of
  the checked out files.
  
  >The idea here was to avoid a discontinuity, otherwise there's no way to
  >ask CVS:  "Give me a snapshot of freebsd 2.0R sources."
  
  I thought cvs was able to get the old files from Attics, and that's the
  main reason we are keeping 100% junk in Attics.

Yes, but you can't re-add a file with the same name back in.
  
  >Every other convoluted way of doing the same thing involved just as much
  >code getting stuffed into the attic (sigh).
  
  Sigh.  It would be worse if we actually kept up with gnu releases.

Not if they had been imported into branches cleanly in the first place,
then it's 100% trivial!
  
  Bruce