[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail thoug h it s
RE: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail thoug h it should have !
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:07:42 +0200
If anyone is going to fix this, I suggest that this speed improvement is
made configurable - either for the user, as a command-line option to "cvs
commit", or at least for the CVS administrator, e.g., as an option in
From: Eric Siegerman [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though
it should have !
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:36:58PM +0200, Reinstein, Shlomo wrote:
> I have also looked up the sources of CVS. In commit.c, there's the
> 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,
Yikes; I had no idea! That does seem pretty conclusive, though :-/
> but it probably is a Good
> Thing, or at least Not Such A Bad Thing. */
I'd sure like to know *why* he felt that. The commit message
(src/commit.c rev 1.40) is no more revealing than the comment.
I imagine the change was made as a speed improvement, but that
doesn't seem sufficient grounds for the resulting violation of
user expectations -- at least, not without more justification
than was given.
> I just wonder how come this does not cause problems in
> the development of large projects that are kept in CVS.
So do I!
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. address@hidden
| | /
A distributed system is one on which I cannot get any work done,
because a machine I have never heard of has crashed.
- Leslie Lamport
Info-cvs mailing list
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|
- RE: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail thoug h it should have !,
Reinstein, Shlomo <=