[racket-dev] ready for the package switch?

Carl Eastlund wrote at 06/18/2013 01:36 PM:
> <rant>I don't understand why version control systems don't take 
> directories and renames more seriously, because this stuff is part of 
> the development cycle and should be recorded like any other change.</rant>

This doesn't help, but...  I think the reason is that it's hard to do, 
so most SCM systems haven't even tried.  It's very common for a rename 
to be a delete-plus-add in the model.  Or, in an RCS/SCCS/etc.-backed 
system like CVS, for someone to simply rename the files in the 
repository server's filesystem and break any branches that did not want 
those files renamed.

Perhaps the most sophisticated SCM I've used, Atria ClearCase (a 
descendant of Apollo DSEE) in the early-mid 1990s, had a much more 
sophisticated model than the others, and, IIRC, even did fancy things 
like monitoring filesystem operations(?), but it cost a lot of money and 
required a lot of sys-admin.

Git's free-ness and popularity makes it the obvious choice to use 
nowadays, but in my limited experience with it, Git seems to have a lot 
of evolution of "let's add on yet another somewhat different concept to 
our numerous existing concepts that originally built upon some scripts 
that Linus found useful for managing kernel patches", rather than 
nailing a clean and sufficient model from the start.  This is a source 
of frustration to those of us who have used a dozen other SCM systems 
and recall basic things being easier to do in the past.

Neil V.