Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 16 Jan 1995 22:16:39 -0500
From:      Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
To:        Paul Richards <paul@isl.cf.ac.uk>
Cc:        pst@shockwave.com (Paul Traina), ache@astral.msk.su, CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-CVSROOT@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules
Message-ID:  <9501170316.AA23492@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199501161932.TAA00255@isl.cf.ac.uk>
References:  <199501161919.LAA01106@precipice.Shockwave.COM> <199501161932.TAA00255@isl.cf.ac.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Mon, 16 Jan 1995 19:32:39 +0000 (GMT), Paul Richards <paul@isl.cf.ac.uk> said:

>> At some point, we're going to have to remove groff from the cvs tree.

> We can't do that because then we can't checkout 2.0 release or other
> previously tagged points.

I don't see anything bad about this.  Once we've released 2.2, there
is no reason to keep around old, bogus versions of software that were
used two releases previously and isn't maintained (or indeed
maintainable, which was PST's principal---and laudable---contribution).

> There'd be no problem getting a 2.0R snapshot with the way I did it. The
> way you're doing it prevents this though.

The ``way you did it'' perverts the design of CVS in a way that makes
maintenance almost impossible.  (Witness the fact that a new version
had been out for quite a while now before someone actually sat down
and did the work that CVS is designed to do automatically.)

> People should bear in mind that the cvs repository is not easily
> munged and that once things go in, they stay in, forever. 

As I said above, I think that this is a bad way to run a source tree.
There are enough copies of the 2.0 sources extant that if anyone
/really/ wants to see the sources to that hacked-up groff, they can be
satisfied by pointing them towards one of these archives.

> We
> shouldn't use cvs to do things like run parallel development 

This, however, is quite true.  But the particular example given here
is a special case in the extreme.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman   | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... 
wollman@lcs.mit.edu  | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance.
Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence.  We like people
MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish.  - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9501170316.AA23492>