[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ignore local changes?
From: |
Kaz Kylheku |
Subject: |
Re: Ignore local changes? |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Apr 2003 12:47:05 -0800 (PST) |
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Larry Jones wrote:
> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:01:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: Larry Jones <address@hidden>
> To: Eric Siegerman <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Ignore local changes?
>
> Eric Siegerman writes:
> >
> > CVS should probably print a warning in this case, but it doesn't.
>
> "This case" is updating a file with a sticky tag or date, which seems
> like a good idea to me, too. Anyone disagree?
I agree conditionally.
If you have many files (for instance all of them!) sticky to a
revision, you don't want a separate warning for each file. What if they
are all sticky?
Proposal: issue a warning only for those files which are sticky to
something different from what their containing directory is sticky to.
Examples:
1. The directory ``x'' is sticky to ``foo_branch'' but files ``x/a'' and
``x/b.c'' are sticky to versions 1.3 and 1.9 respectively. The update
operation over the directory warns in this case for these two files.
2. The directory ``x'' is sticky to ``foo_release_1'' but files
``x/a'' and ``x/b.c'' are not sticky to anything. Update over the
directory does update these two files, but produces a warning.
3. The directory ``x'' on the main trunk, but files ``x/a'' and
``x/b'' are sticky to ``foo_branch''. Update warns for both.
4. The directory ``x'' is sticky, and ``x/b'' is
not sticky. The user selectively updates ``x/b''. No warning.
5. The directory ``x'' is sticky to something, and ``x/b'' is
sticky to something else. The user selectively updates ``x/b''. No warning.
6. The directory ``x'' is not sticky, and ``x/b'' is
sticky. The user selectively updates ``x/b''. No warning.
7. The directory, and all its files, are sticky to the same tag,
``release_1_0''. Update does nothing, and produces no warning.
Alternative: update warns that nothing is being done because
of the sticky tag.
Basically any situation in which the stickiness of a file contradicts
the stickiness of the directory should be a cause for warning on
update. A commit, if otherwise allowed, should probably fail because
of this: the user should be forced to commit the differently-sticky
files individuall.
Example:
8. The directory ``x'' is sticky to branch ``foo'' and ``x/b'' is
sticky to branch ``bar''. User commits in the directory. The commit
fails, explaining the stickiness conflict---that the commit would
be split into two or more branches.
9. The directory ``x'' is sticky to branch ``foo'' and ``x/b'' is
sticky to branch ``bar''. User commits ``x/b'' selectively.
The commit proceeds normally.
Re: Ignore local changes?, Eric Siegerman, 2003/04/02
Re: Ignore local changes?, Greg A. Woods, 2003/04/02