Terry Lambert wrote: > > Sergey Babkin wrote: > > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > # OK, let's suppose that our changes are finally complete, and nobody > > > > # else has committed any other changes in between > > > > cvs ci > > > > > > Suppose someone has? If you are so out of touch with the net you > > > need a cache, you are probably going to get a conflict, because > > > > It's very likely that the conflict can be cured by a simple > > "cvs update". > > How? Your local repository is out of date. You can't update > your local repository because it's a cache, and the cache contains > some local changes, and any update will bow those changes away, or > abort because there's a conflict. This is exactly my "incoherent" > picture.
No, it does not contain the local changes. The local changes are in a completely separate repository. (Well, if the same repository could be made to contain the local changes without upsetting cvsup and cvs, that would be just as good or better. But that seems to be too difficult, a completely separate repository for local changes looks easier). Hope that clarifies the picture. > You can't make local checkins to the same place CVSup writes to; > CVS is too stupid, and CVSup is too stupid to handle it. You'd > need a "multicvs" -- one that could operate a shadow repository. Yes. I guess we just had terminological difficulties with explaining this point to each other :-) -SB To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
