[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Annotate of Log output wrong
Ming Kin Lai
Re: Annotate of Log output wrong
Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:34:30 -0700
> The original discussion appeared to focus on the expansion of the $Log$
> keyword both in the file and as output by the "cvs annotate" command
> version 1.11.17); but I think other keywords such as $Id$ have the same
> problem. I am running CVS version 1.11.6 on Solaris. After I committed
> file that contains some keywords, (I did not perform a checkout or
> after that,) the file in my working directory shows the following:
See my reply to your 'Inaccurate documentation re "cvs tag"'.
commit does an update to keep things consistent between your sandbox and
repo when it gets done.
See my reply under 'Inaccurate documentation re "cvs tag"'. I carefully
quote what and how cederqvist says in relation to these things. My position
is that a user, especially a novice one, should not be expected to ask
around in the mailing list in order to understand some basic concepts such
as that a commit actually does a update, and therefore a local copy after a
"cvs commit" can be considered one after a "cvs update", and a "checked out"
copy, as used in the manual, really means a "ckecked out" copy and/or a
"committed" copy, ...., for example. I think these kinds of things should
be clearly spelled out. Users should be only expected to understand how CVS
works "by the book" - the book meaning cederqvist. cederqvist should be
BTW I think you should stop thinking of ci and co, which are RCS commands,
and start thinking in terms of checkin and checkout which are CVS commands,
and imply a bit more work. (although CVS will happily let you abbreviate
checkin with ci and checkout with co, do not try to abbreviate the
I do not know what you mean by "thinking of ci and co". Again, I go "by the
book". Appendix A of cederqvist says "co" is a synonym of "checkout" and
that's the way I think. That is, when I think of "cvs co", I am thinking of
"cvs checkout". As cederqvist says, they are the same. You can replace
"cvs co" with "cvs checkout" in my post and what I said would not change a
bit. And as I said in the other post, I think you separate the concept from
the command(s) used to implement the concept. I believe that should be
clearly documented in cederqvist, assumed the CVS designers agree that is a
good idea. If you find a place in the current cedeqvist that has a section
"Checking out a file" in which the _concept_ of checking out is explained
together with the "cvs checkout" and the "cvs commit" _commands_, for
instance, please show me.
> Annotations for compiler.c
> 1.3 (mingl 12-Jul-05): $Id: compiler.c,v 1.2 2005/07/12
> mingl Exp $
> 1.3 (mingl 12-Jul-05): this is $Date: 2005/07/12 02:32:17 $
> 1.2 (mingl 12-Jul-05): $Log: compiler.c,v $
> >From the leftmost column, it is obvious that the latest revision is
> however, the keywords expand to only revision 1.2.
> 1. Todd Denniston states that "If I Recall Correctly, $Log:$ is expanded
> checkout, so the last
> (chronological) log entry seen in a Log in a sandbox has not yet been
> checked into CVS. Therefore, the repository knows nothing about it, and
> not annotate what to it does not exist." (Larry Jones says similar
> "the $Log$ keyword (not command) is expanded
> by checkout/update".)
> I think the first half of the sentence is inaccurate:
> apparently the keywords are expanded (in the working file) upon
> (check-in), i.e. no subsequent checkout is needed.
No you misinterpret the situation, because commit syncs your sandbox with
the repository after it does the commit.
If I misinterpret the situation, then in my opinion it is cederqvist that
allows this misinterpretation.
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement