[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?

From: Jim.Hyslop
Subject: RE: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:39:11 -0500

Eric Siegerman [mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> 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...
I certainly agree about the "checksum failure" message - it can cause
consternation among users. I'm not so sure I agree about hiding the
distinction, though. Is there any use-case in which the user would really
need to know? For example, concern over bandwidth - if the user sees 'U',
then they may choose to use the -z global option for compression, which they
may not otherwise use. Am I stretching things, maybe?

You could always submit a patch, and see if anyone notices that 'P' never
shows up any more ;=)

Jim Hyslop 
Senior Software Designer 
Leitch Technology International Inc. (<>) 
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (<>) 

reply via email to

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