X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:19:16 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Problems with cygwin cvs over ssh.
Message-ID: <20060324091916.GM10301@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <012820061553 DOT 28125 DOT 43DB937200080D3500006DDD22069984990A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net> <4423B5DC DOT 7010802 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4423B5DC.7010802@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On Mar 24 04:03, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
> >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.
> [...]
> I also saw something on the cvs mailing list to that effect:
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-cvs/2005-09/msg00305.html
> > Generally, you should resolve conflicts immediately, rather than
> > trying to apply another update. By updating without resolving the
> > conflicts, you are in effect telling CVS "It's OK, you can ignore
> > those conflicts."
> 
> I'll try reverting just this change and rebuild to see if I can 
> replicate 1.11.17's behavior (just out of curiosity) -- but even if it 
> does, I'm not going to release a 1.11.21-2 with that patch.  This isn't 
> a battle I want to fight: if the upstream maintainers have made a design 
> decision, I'm not going to second-guess that based on what Eric likes or 
> dislikes. :-)

I know this is off-topic for this list, but I consider this change as
rather frustrating, too.  I'm often in the situation that I have to
update a CVS tree which has lots and lots of changes.  A single `cvs up'
floods the terminal window with output, so I call `cvs up' again, to see
only the relevant information (C's and M's).  However, with this change
you lose the information that an M is actually a C.  This is very
user-unfriendly.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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/