[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: checkout with -D resurrects deleted files

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: checkout with -D resurrects deleted files
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:27:38 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:11:46PM -0500, Bruce Tiffany wrote:
> I believe I've found the source of my confusion.  When a file is deleted 
> in
> CVS, then revised by another user, cvs checkout will not produce the file,
> however cvs checkout -D <now> will.  I'm uncertain if that's a bug or a
> feature, use of checkout -D ... seems to be the safer way to go. 

Looks like a bug to me.  Tested with CVS 1.11, all actions
performed on the trunk:

> Time   User 1                        User 2
> ----   --------------------          ------------------------------
>   |    cvs checkout proj1            cvs checkout proj1
>   |    rm foo
>   |    cvs -remove foo
>  \|/   cvs commit

Does what you'd expect -- checks in a "dead" revision and moves
the ,v file to the attic.

>                                      edit foo

Note that a "cvs commit" here correctly reports "Up-to-date check
failed for `foo'".

>                                      cvs update

        $ cvs update
        cvs update: Updating .
        RCS file: /home/erics/t2/Repos/p/Attic/foo,v
        retrieving revision 1.1
        retrieving revision 1.2
        Merging differences between 1.1 and 1.2 into foo
        foo already contains the differences between 1.1 and 1.2

Shouldn't it have reported a conflict?

>                                      cvs commit

Commits User 2's text as a new undead revision (ie. state="Exp"),
but DOES NOT move the ,v file back out of the Attic, thus
violating this constraint, as documented in the manual, node
        [...] the rule is that the RCS file is stored in the
        attic if and only if the head revision on the trunk has
        state `dead'.

The reported inconsistency between "cvs checkout" and
"cvs checkout -D now" follows from this.


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
        - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)

reply via email to

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