bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: join not producing conflict


From: Mark D. Baushke
Subject: Re: join not producing conflict
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:16:45 -0700

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Edwards <address@hidden> writes:

> "Derek Robert Price" <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,
> >
> > This one is pretty good, but instead of `head', you should use `base'.
> 
> I normally use the word "base" to refer to xxx.  The common
> ancestor is the base.  I guess in CVS that is called "root"?

In this context "base" means the version number found in the CVS/Entries
for the given file(s).
 
> What about we just concentrate on the simple case of people
> editting the latest version of the file, so that the head is
> coincidentally the "CVS base" (ie not root)?

I think the example allows the meaning to show thru regardless of
terminology. I also used "re-apply" rather than "re-add" as I showd the
automagic code removal case and the conflict case in the message I sent.

> > You might add a line at the end warning that, barring objections, the
> > behavior will be changed shortly on stable.
> 
> Mark?  I assume you'll be posting?

Already done.

So far, I have not heard anything about the info-cvs posting. If there
are no objections, I'll try to plan to commit sometime shortly after
2003-10-23 23:00 UTC (~7pm EDT, ~4pm PDT)...

        -- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/lw/d3x41pRYZE/gRApiNAJ9pnRHtSy4XWiGFc6DM7klqYjkmLACg26zi
Gc7wBrmFbCW+tpqj95IlG0k=
=O6/a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




reply via email to

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