[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs |
Date: |
Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:02:38 -0700 |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 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_.
>
> Why not? What else is there?
Truncating the discussion in this way with deleting too much context
does not help the dialog...
vc-pull is needed in general, but forcing it to be used by default by
avoiding the use of cvs status does not seem to be a good idea.
Anyway we'll see what users actually think if someone actually
implements this stuff.
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, (continued)
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/04