[Top][All Lists]

[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

From: Reinstein, Shlomo
Subject: RE: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail thoug h it should have !
Date: 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

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Siegerman [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 8:46 PM
To: address@hidden
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

reply via email to

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