Kernel SCM: When does CVS fall down where it REALLY matters?

Val Henson:

For a laugh, read the instructions on how to "rename" CVS files.
Hint: "Rename" is not the correct word.

$ mv old new
$ cvs remove old
$ cvs add new
$ cvs commit -m "Renamed old to new" old new

[...] There are two other ways to rename a file in CVS, one of which is described as "dangerous" and the other as having "drawbacks." References:

Note that the way to rename a file in in BitKeeper is:

$ bk mv old new

No danger, no drawbacks, no hand editing of history files.

I like the arch way of renaming a file:

	$ mv old new

(Yes, history is preserved, etc.)

-t

Come on, Tom, truth in advertising. If you don't have the file identifier in the file, what you just described doesn't work.

Arch has a concept of an "inode" quite similar to BitKeeper, in fact one wonders where the idea came from :-), and as long as the the "inode" is embedded in the file, you can do what Tom says above. If it isn't, that won't work, no matter what he says. I speak from the experience of importing lots of kernel versions into BK and trying to automate the detection of renames. Can't be done and if Tom claims it can, then ask him to demonstrate how by taking a a few thousand kernel patches and autodetecting the renames.

---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Arch has a concept of an "inode" quite similar to BitKeeper, in fact one wonders where the idea came from :-),

Common sense.

-t