[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:07:07 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:35:00PM -0500, Jim.Hyslop wrote:
> ajrijnberg [mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> > cvs update: checksum failure after patch to some_dir/some_file.c; will
> > refetch
> The
> two checksums did not match, so CVS scrapped the patched file and just
> retrieved the whole thing from the repository.

Personally, I'd be in favour of CVS hiding the distinction
between "patch" and "update".  They both lead to the same end
state, and which method CVS chooses is an implementation detail
that's irrelevent to end users.

The "P" status and the "checksum failure" message should both go
away.  (Patched and fully-refetched files should all be labelled
"U".)  I can understand wanting to distinguish the different
cases while debugging, but that's what "#ifdef DEBUG" is for...


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
It must be said that they would have sounded better if the singer
wouldn't throw his fellow band members to the ground and toss the
drum kit around during songs.
        - Patrick Lenneau

reply via email to

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