[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Keyword substitution command options override binary status forrepos
Mark D. Baushke
Re: Keyword substitution command options override binary status forrepository files
Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:49:19 -0700
Susanne Bertling <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi Dieter,
> > The "keyword2-20k" test has unexpected behaviour. It outputs
> > two "U binfile.dat" lines. This may be a bug in updating
> > binary files exposed but not caused by my patch. I leave the
> > analysis to someone more familiar with "cvs" than I am.
> There are the following commands in sanity.sh (keyword2-16 - keyword2-20):
> cvs update -A (binfile.date has revision 1.1)
> cvs tag -b branch2
> cvs update -r branch2
> changes to binfile.dat
> cvs ci (new revision is 188.8.131.52)
> cvs update -A -kk -j branch2
> At the last command cvs first checks out the head revision (1.1) of
> binfile.date, the first 'U binfile.dat' then it has to merge the
> differences between the greatest common ancestor of the head revision
> and the last revision into the head revision. But the greatest common
> ancestor is revision 1.1, so revision 184.108.40.206 is the result of the
> merge. The second output 'U binfile.dat' indicates, that there was a
> second checkout of the file (this time of revision 220.127.116.11).
> As an explanation in 'update.c' you can read the comment
> /* Traditionally, the text file case prints a whole bunch of
> scary looking and verbose output which fails to tell the user
> what is really going on (it gives them rev1 and rev2 but doesn't
> indicate in any way that rev1 == vn_user). I think just a
> simple "U foo" is good here; it seems analogous to the case in
> which the file was added on the branch in terms of what to
> print. */
> I think the output isn't very informative about what is going on, but
> the test case ist handled correctly. When you use the nonmodified cvs
> you get the same output if you replace the option -kk by -kb.
Yup. Thanks for posting your analysis. I was trying to figure out if
there was a better way to print out what was really happening, but I
didn't come up with any changes that seemed to generate intuititve
output and I am leaning on not changing the code in update.c and
just keeping the adjusted test case.
> P.S.: I'd like the patch to be included in cvs, too.
It is on my list of things to do, unfortunately I have been a bit busy
lately. I'll try to commit it soon.