Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

  > >> Which is indeed all the info you'll ever get from all other VCSes.
  > >> Their `vc-dir' command will never tell you "needs-update" either.
  > 
  > > But the state those backends show in vc-dir is accurate, and you can
  > > just check things in without a problem.
  > 
  > Not necessarily.  With Bazaar, if you do a "checkout"
  > (i.e. a bound-branch: your local branch is bound to some other branch;
  > commits go to both places), then bzr commit may fail if you haven't
  > first updated your local branch to the latest revision on the
  > upstream branch.
  > 
  > Of course, with CVS the problem is also present if you use cvs-status:
  > the returned state may be "accurate" when you receive it, but it can
  > change before you do the commit.

Well, that's always the case for any shared system, isn't it?  So
there's no real reason to mix that in this discussion.

  > > If things go the way you are proposing, how do you get the up to date
  > > state so you can actually check in your changes?  Another command?
  > 
  > Yes, a command we absolutely need anyway: vc-pull.

We do need the vc-pull command, but we don't need it for CVS _by default_.  
Sure, it could be used for CVS, but that is not the normal workflow for
CVS, so it would just confuse our users.   And while the implementation
of vc-cvs-stay-local is trivial, vc-pull is not.