Re: patch: new 'cvs import -X' option.

[Chris G. Demetriou]

"Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@cvshome.org> writes:
> I will note that your change to src/import.c
> includes the use of C99/C++ style comments (that
> begin with //) which is not permitted in our
> current C89 compliant source base.
>
> ...
> // XXXCGD ADD COMMENT
> ...
> // XXXCGD FIX COMMENTS
> ...
> 
> I suppose those should be removed from the final patch...

Heh.  I could tell you that I'd meant to leave those in, for removal
in a final patch...  Or I could tell the truth and admit that I
completely forgot about them.  8-)

Once I get some more feedback, I'll address this.


> It would probably be useful to add a paragraph to
> the documentation about how a user would move the
> code from the vendor branch to the main trunk
> 
>      cvs import -X module vendor vendor-release-new
>      ...in another checked out tree using either
> 
>             cvs update -jvendor-release-new
>      ...or
>             cvs update -jvendor-release-old -jvendor-release-new

So, CVS spits out the message re: update -j -j when you 'import -X',
just like it does when you import and conflicts result.

So, I don't know that it makes sense to add much about this.  (In
general, I think that if you're planning to use this feature, you
understand why you want it and how to merge from branches.  If you
*don't*, I don't know why you'd be tempted to try it to begin
with... and even if you are, the update -j -j message gets printed on
import as a suggestion.)

(BTW, I think that getting that message printed all the time is an
added bonus: IMO CVS should always print that message, to remind
people to merge, to handle removed files.)

The only case that's interesting is initial import.  In that case,
vendor-release-old doesn't exist.  Using a non-existant tag should
probably DTRT, but personally I tend to use '0' as an explicit rev
number.




chris