[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: join not producing conflict

From: Paul Edwards
Subject: Re: join not producing conflict
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:51:52 GMT

"Paul Edwards" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
> "Mark D. Baushke" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
> > Paul? If you have a suggestion for a write-up proposal to send to
> > info-cvs, I would love to read it. :-)
> Hello info-cvs.

If you attempt to issue a cvs update -j xxx -j yyy where
yyy is the head, cvs currently ignores the command,
because it assumes that the change must already be in
your local version, and there's no reason for you to have
gone to the effort of deleting the code only to request it
be readded.

There are some people who effectively do wish to delete
code and then request it to be readded (it takes all sorts).

Does anyone object to CVS actioning the "readd" request?

As an example, commit a file with

add ddd to the end, then commit that.

then delete ddd.
then do a cvs update -j 1.1 -j 1.2 to put the ddd back in.
CVS will ignore you.

I believe this new behaviour, acknowledging the readd
request, is consistent with both the documentation, logic,
and the behaviour of diff3.

If you rely on the old behaviour, please elaborate on the
circumstances where you issue the join command expecting
it to do nothing.

Thanks.  Paul.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]