info-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it should


From: Reinstein, Shlomo
Subject: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it should have !
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:36:58 +0200

I have also looked up the sources of CVS. In commit.c, there's the following
comment: (I'm quoting)
        /* Sending only the names of the files which were modified, added,
           or removed means that the server will only do an up-to-date
           check on those files.  This is different from local CVS and
           previous versions of client/server CVS, but it probably is a Good
           Thing, or at least Not Such A Bad Thing.  */

So it seems like this behavior was intentional. I'm sure you realize the
consequences of this. I just wonder how come this does not cause problems in
the development of large projects that are kept in CVS.

Is there an intention to fix (/change) this?

Shlomo

-----Original Message-----
From: Reinstein, Shlomo 
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:49 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !


I've just compiled and tried CVS 1.11.5 -- same behavior. Up-to-date check
does not work correctly when using client/server.
Shlomo

-----Original Message-----
From: Reinstein, Shlomo 
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:49 PM
To: Guus Leeuw jr.
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !


This happened with 1.10.8 and also with 1.11.1p1. No related fix has been
mentioned in the news file for CVS versions 1.12-1.15.
Shlomo

-----Original Message-----
From: Guus Leeuw jr. [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:07 PM
To: Reinstein, Shlomo
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: AW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !


Shlomo,

Which version was this? 1.11.5? Or the older version?

Cheers,
Guus

-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden Im Auftrag von
Reinstein, Shlomo
Gesendet: zondag 23 februari 2003 9:24
An: Eric Siegerman; address@hidden
Betreff: RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !

Hi,

I have ran the test with the repo local to the CVS server, and it shows the
same behavior. Which brings me to the conclusion that the client/server
protocol does not function as expected. Here's the scenario: (Can be done by
the same user on the same machine)

[ rest snipped ] 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 13/02/2003
 


_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs


_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs




reply via email to

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