[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: "co -l" for same file in multiple branches fails

From: Aaron S. Hawley
Subject: Re: "co -l" for same file in multiple branches fails
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:13 -0400

Using `rcs' instead of `co' avoids the "multiple revisions locked"
message.  Here's a script I wrote to prove this.

echo 1.1 > foo
ci -l -t-foo foo
echo 1.2 > foo
ci -u -m1.2 foo
co -l1.1 foo
echo > foo
ci -u1.1.1 -m1.1.1.1 foo
co -l1.2 foo
echo > foo
ci -u1.2.1 -m1.2.1.1 foo

## 3 locks
co -f -l foo
co -f -l1.1.1 foo
rcs -l1.2.1 foo

Here's the result of rlog -h

$ rlog -h foo
RCS file: foo,v
Working file: foo
head: 1.2
locks: strict
        ashawley: 1.2
access list:
symbolic names:
keyword substitution: kv
total revisions: 4

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Jonathan Wistar
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Greetings,
>     I'm on a SUN platform which (suspiciously) has the various RCS utilities
> in /usr/local/bin,
> although
>         % what /usr/local/bin/co
> says:
>         SunOS 5.4 generic July 1994
> and
>         % co -V
> says:
>         RCS version 5.7
> I observe that if I check out the same file (locked) in 3 branches,
> the 3rd (locked) check-out doesn't actually lock the file:
>         % co -l foobar.c
>         % co -l10.1.11 foobar.c
>         % co -l10.1.8 foobar.c                /* fails */
> although it looks like it succeeds (based on the output to one's screen),
> but rlog(1) shows that
> you don't actually get the 3rd lock.
> I realize, based on the date, that this particular code is about 14 years
> old, but I'm not aware
> that there has been lots of development going on, since that time.
> So, what do we know about this bug (if anything), or where can I read up on
> "known RCS bugs and fixes"
> (or the like) ?
> Thanks.
> -- Jonathan Wistar

We can lift up our hands to the sky. Find all of
those strings that they're pulling and keep from
falling back into our old rhythmic poses. Turning
us into machines. -- Darkest Hour

reply via email to

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