[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
cvs-1.11.21 and behavior on 'Conflict'
From: |
Charles Wilson |
Subject: |
cvs-1.11.21 and behavior on 'Conflict' |
Date: |
Sat, 06 May 2006 20:32:18 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) |
Hi - I maintain the cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com/) package of cvs and
currently we distribute 1.11.17, and I have a 1.11.21 version in 'beta'.
I'd like to promote 1.11.21 ... and then perhaps release a beta of
1.12.x. However, my users have reported some problems with 1.11.21:
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.
As far as I can tell, this new behavior was introduced here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/cvs-cvs/2005-09/msg00899.html
(1.11 branch, but later merged to 1.12). *IF* I am correct, reverting
to the previous behavior is not as simple as just backing out this
patch, because the patch appears correct a number of other misbehaviors
AND changes the internal interpretation of T_CONFLICT (e.g we can now
"trust T_CONFLICT" -- as if it wasn't trustworthy before? Which flies
in the face of the testcase above, where there exists a conflict but it
is not being reported the second time!)
So, I have two questions: is the behavior in the test case above
intentional, and if so, what is the reasoning behind the new behavior?
If a conflict is reported on first cvs update, and I *do nothing*,
shouldn't cvs continue to report that conflict until it is fixed? Where
am I going wrong? Another of my users wrote, in response to the above
report,
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.
So, if this is NOT the intended behavior ... can it be corrected? <g>
--
Chuck
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- cvs-1.11.21 and behavior on 'Conflict',
Charles Wilson <=