Re: autotools transition report: need a flag day

[Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 06:53:27PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> 
> Nevertheless, it'd be nice if the naming for libstdc++ was consistent.
> How hard would it be to drive a stake through the heart of the -v3 suffix?

We can't rename the source directory.  Under CVS, there is no "rename"
of directories; we'd have to recreate libstdc++ and then move the files.
Another CVSism is that directories don't ever die, they just become empty.
Their history is preserved, in case somebody wants to resurrect one of
the files.  So the old v2 libstdc++ stuff is still in the repository.
If we move v3 files under a libstdc++ directory name, that old v2 history
suddenly becomes active.  This is a kiss of death.

There are lots of ways of hacking around this.  They all involve manipulating
the repository files directly, which the majority of GCC maintainers do not
like to do.  And even if we did that, none of those solutions are perfect.

As far as the source directory name goes, we're stuck with it until we
move to a revision control system that supports directory renames.


Phil

-- 
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
    - Brian W. Kernighan