Re: CVS diff and unknown files.

[Paul Sander]

On Jan 30, 2005, at 2:18 AM, address@hidden wrote:

> Todd Denniston <address@hidden> writes:
> > Sergei Organov wrote:
> > > Todd Denniston <address@hidden> writes:
> > > > If "cvs -n commit" runs the triggers to do your check(see my
> > > > question above), I have another question: in a remote server setup
> > > > (i.e., :pserver:, :ext:) which test was failed, the add or the
> > > > normal commit?
> > >
> > > With my approach there is no add-to-working-copy-time triggers,
> > > adding of a new file is normal commit (the commit time trigger
> > > should have a way to check if the file is already in the repository
> > > or not). So your question reduces to the following: "how client
> > > knows what exactly failed?" and the answer is "through appropriate
> > > error message, as usual".
> > >
> > > Please notice that with separate add-to-working-copy-time triggers 
> > > the
> > > situation at commit time is exactly the same as those triggers must 
> > > be
> > > run at commit time anyway. What's an answer to your question in this
> > > case?
> >
> > There is a certain amount beauty in the simplicity in keeping the 
> > status
> > quo, which works. :)
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work, sorry -- that's why I've initiated this
> thread in the first place.

Huh?  You know what "status quo" means, right?  It means "the way 
things are".  You seem to be arguing both ways.  Would you post a 
message stating your point of view, completely, please?  Thanks!

> > There is also beauty in having the options you want, and none that get
> > in other peoples way. For one of these options much more energy must
> > be expended. :)
>
> That's why I've tried to suggest a way to implement things that is
> rather simple. Still it provides an option to check if a new file will
> be allowed to go into repository.

Unfortunately, if checking for compliance is an option, it will never 
(or at least very rarely) be taken for one of the following reasons:

- They think they are already in compliance and don't need to check.
- They think they have legitimate cause to break policy.
- They're unaware of the policy.
- They forget to check.

It's possible to have a third party check periodically, as Greg 
suggests.  But that method isn't as effective as automatic enforcement 
at the moment the violation occurs.

--
Paul Sander       | "To do two things at once is to do neither"
address@hidden | Publilius Syrus, Roman philosopher, 100 B.C.