Many scripts depend on the current output of "cvs update", so changing
it would probably not be a good idea. It's an interface, like it or
not. (Not that I disagree with your idea, just think it's not worth
the hassle it would cause people in switchover.)
-K
Nick Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not really a bug, just a suggestion :
>
> Would it be a good idea for `cvs update' to generate a different output for a
> merge to that when only the local file is modified ? ME and MO say. Merges
> may be `successful' but still not do what you want them to so they need a bit
> more caution. I know that when `cvs update' is run, a file, `.#filename', is
> generated. However, this is not evident when exploring with `cvs -n update'.
> `cvs status * | grep -i merge' will find which files need a merge but this is
> not very elegant.
>
> Nick Roberts
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-cvs mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
