On Dec 14 18:02, Thomas Wolff wrote: > Hi, please excuse some basic questions about CVS best practice: > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >... Patches are supposed to be against > >the latest from CVS. And it's also not cumbersome, it's rather quite > >simple. CVS is doing that for you usually anyway. If you have a > >patched CVS source tree, just call `cvs up' and the current HEAD is > >merged with your local changes. Given that fhandler_console.cc wasn't > >changed for a while anyway, you should not see any merge conflicts. > In this case yes. In general, if there are merging conflicts, I > would have to dig around in reject logs, right? (Or do a fresh > checkout and repatch.)
No, you get a locally merged file with marked merge conflicts. > Also, since with this workflow I'd have the patched latest version > only, what is the most convenient way to create the patch diff? cvs diff -up > Do you maintain two checkouts, an unpatched one to base on? Of course not. What's a source code control system good for if you do everything manually? You should really start RTF cvs M. `info cvs' for a start. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
