cgd@broadcom.com writes:
> At Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:47:20 +0000 (UTC), "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
> > How about if one did a copy but altered the dates in the duplicate? It
> > is pretty easy to do that. One then retains a modicum of revision
> > history.
> 
> So, for the sake of "keeping history" you change that history?  "Hmm."

I have a slightly better suggestion, then. You alter CVS to allow you
to specify a "don't do checkouts by date on this file before date X"
or "before revision X" or some such. That allows us to move the file
and still avoid breaking checkout by date.

You might ask, why do I care. The reason is primarily dealing with
things like vendor branches and merges with other codebases
cleanly. It is nice to be able to keep history around and use it.

> As far as I'm concerned, disincentive to move files around would be a
> positive thing.  8-)

I don't think so. Reorganizing the kernel sources, for instance, would
be nice. The desire to move the filesystem related files and possibly
reorganize portions of sys/arch by CPU type etc. seem quite
reasonable, but are projects people have long avoided for fear of
breaking the log revision history too badly.

Anyway, long run I think Subversion beats CVS for this and other
reasons, but it would be nice to improve the situation if only for a
few years until that happens.

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com