apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sander Striker" <stri...@apache.org>
Subject Renaming files in cvs, WAS: RE: arch specific include files, the naming thereof
Date Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:01:27 GMT
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:33 PM

> At 05:45 AM 1/6/2003, Thom May wrote:
> >* Greg Stein (gstein@lyra.org) wrote :
> >> On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 11:59:50PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >> >...
> >> > My argument against using "apr_*.h" would be twofold.
> >> 
> >> Fair enough... both points make sense.
> >
> >Ok, so this looks like a rough consensus on apr_private_*.h, right?
> I would personally prefer we stick with apr_arch_*.h ... that's a nifty idea
> and not to far from Greg's preference for apr_priv_*.h to keep it short
> and sweet.  Either is my preference, apr_private_*.h seems too wordy
> when you end up with names like apr_private_thread_mutex.h
> >What's the best way to rename the files? cvs rm and add them again with new
> >names, or move the RCS files directly (something i've never tried and have
> >no great desire to do on a live server without someone going "yeah, that
> >works" ;-) )?
> If we want to keep the history, you can cp the ,v files with some caviats;
> 1) Start with cp apr_foo.h apr_arch_foo.h
> 2) cvs rm apr_foo.h
> 3) cvs tag -d tag apr_arch_foo.h
> There is one problem, apr_arch_foo.h files will be checked out along with
> apr_foo.h if you go by old checkouts by date.  That isn't a huge problem
> when you consider that they are just unreferenced files (the #includes for
> that date tag will be looking for apr_foo.h.)  Also consider that they reside
> in their arch/ tree and aren't installed when one builds apr.
> I'd say that problem is minimal, and preserving the history in an easy
> to follow manner is far more important.

Ahum, this would be messing with history, like you say above.  Can't we just:

cvs rm foo.c
cvs add foobar.c
cvs ci -m "Moved foo.c to foobar.c"

That seems a lot cleaner to me.


PS.  We should create a developer FAQ for this...
     ...or switch to Subversion ;)

View raw message