X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake)
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Problems with cygwin cvs over ssh.
Date:	Sat, 28 Jan 2006 15:53:22 +0000
Message-Id:	<012820061553.28125.43DB937200080D3500006DDD22069984990A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

> 
> So I guess it's now up to the cvs maintainer to try tracking this down (or
> reporting this as a bug upstream).  FWIW, I've looked at the sources of
> 1.11.17 and didn't see where that "." was added.  Did anyone try this with
> a test cvs-1.11.21-1?

My experience with cvs-1.11.21-1 is that it loses track of conflicts.  In
other words, in cvs-1.11.17, if I do:

$ cvs up
C foo
$ cvs up
C foo

but in cvs-1.11.21, I get:
$ cvs up
C foo
$ cvs up
M foo

I would much rather see conflicts every time I update, so I haven't
done much further testing of 1.11.21.

--
Eric Blake

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -