Re: join not producing conflict

[Paul Edwards]

"Derek Robert Price" <derek@ximbiot.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.2220.1066841650.21628.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> |>>Paul? If you have a suggestion for a write-up proposal to send to
> |>>info-cvs, I would love to read it. :-)
> |>
> |>Hello info-cvs.
> |
> |
> |If you attempt to issue a cvs update -j xxx -j yyy where
> |yyy is the head, cvs currently ignores the command,
>
> This one is pretty good, but instead of `head', you should use `base'.

I normally use the word "base" to refer to xxx.  The common
ancestor is the base.  I guess in CVS that is called "root"?

What about we just concentrate on the simple case of people
editting the latest version of the file, so that the head is
coincidentally the "CVS base" (ie not root)?

> You might add a line at the end warning that, barring objections, the
> behavior will be changed shortly on stable.

Mark?  I assume you'll be posting?

BFN.  Paul.