On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:02 +0100, "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.) > Also, since with this workflow I'd have the patched latest version only, > what is the most convenient way to create the patch diff? Do you > maintain two checkouts, an unpatched one to base on?
No, CVS does all this for you. Take a look here: http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/cvsmanual/Conflictsexample.html for a walkthrough with examples concerning cvs update and merge resolution. -- Chuck
