Henrik Gedenryd <Henrik.Gedenryd at lucs.lu.se> wrote:
> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> > No. But: It's strongly recommended *not* to change the directory structure
> > of a CVS tree, not rename files etc. It's possible, but it breaks the
> > versioning. So we need to get the structure right from the beginning
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Wow, so the creators obviously didn't know how software development works.
> I've always been impressed by solutions that require you to know what the
> <structure of the> final solution will be like before you start working on
> it.
> 
> This is probably the best thing about Smalltalk--the development environment
> really 'gets it' w r t how the development process works in reality.
> 

I dunno; which Smalltalk configuration management system are you thinking of? 
Squeak hardly has one at all, which gives you ultimate freedom but not
much support.


But anyway, CVS is really a very low-level tool as far as configuration
management goes.  It does a wonderful job versioning individual files,
but I get the impression that it doesn't support larger packages very
well.  Squeak could really use a good *package manager* on top of it to
manage packages of files and packages of subpackages.  For such a
package manager, the lack of explicit "rename" operations in CVS may not
matter at all.



-Lex