Short answer:
Use "find ! -path '*/CVS/*'" (if you're using gnu find). Otherwise pipe the
output of find through "grep -v '/CVS/' (you might have to backslash the '/').
Long answer:
I've come to think that the Base subdirectory is a broken design.
1. The copy stored in Base isn't really the version that was originally checked
out, it's the version existing at the time of "cvs edit".
2. "cvs unedit" is interactive due to it's modification check.
I propose to:
1. Have "cvs edit" create a backup of the file via the usual means (thereby
exposing the backup -- not hiding it within CVS/Base).
2. Have "cvs unedit" solely unedit the file(s) (and perform notifications).
"cvs unedit" would no longer unmodify the file(s) -- it would be up to the user
to unmodify the file since he/she now knows where the backup is.
3. Get rid of Base (as it'll be unnecessary due to the previous).
Noel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.04.03 17:43:43
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Noel L Yap)
Subject: Base directory, in CVS directory
Hi All,
Theory:
**********************************************************************
Base directory, in CVS directory
Base
If watches are in use, then an edit command stores the original copy of the
file in the Base directory. This allows the unedit command to operate even
if it is unable to communicate with the server.
**********************************************************************
That is a great feature, but the problem is that it is the copy with the
exact same name as an original. Then, if I try to grep for the files
recursively in some directory, I will get the files in the "Base" as well.
More - that files seems to have read-only cleared, so in the end quite often
I will edit it instead of the real file... Very annoying... :(
I think that the file should have different extension (suffix) so it won't
get into the search results AND / OR it should have a read only set, so even
if I get to pick it up with the search it will not be so easy to modify it
by mistake. Right now at least once a week I get myself to edit the wrong
file (copy in the Base) and I am that close to drop the idea of using 'edit'
on files and just flip readonly instead...
So much for complainings, now what I want to know is:
1. Are there any other people with similiar opinion;
2. Are there any people with different opinion;
3. Is there any way to switch off that feature.
Thanks in advance,
BR,
Jerzy
The first thing they don't teach you at school: "Never say never".
All the issues not related to the list please send to me in private, thanks.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
