[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.24 02:10:47
>> >Hm... If unedit will not modify the existing file than what is the use of
>> >backup?
>>
>> The same purpose it serves for "cvs up" and other CVS commands -- for the
>user
>> to use at his/her discretion.
>
>Well, so far that backup copy of the file was rather to CONFuse (same name,
>writable, in the subdirectory near the original...)...
We should be clear on which backup we're talking about. There's the backup in
the current implementation of "cvs edit" (the one existing in CVS/Base) and
there's the canonical one for other CVS commands (the one's starting with .#).
My patch changes the behaviour of "cvs edit" such that the backup is the
canonical one. It does away with CVS/Base.
>> Like I said, you would need at least two new flags. One to get the
>behaviour
>> you want, another to override it in case it's in your .cvsrc file.
>
>So....why not?
If someone wants to do this, they can. I have no need for it personally.
A word of warning, though. Unless "cvs co" is changed to save a copy of the
file (as it is upon checkout), "cvs unedit" will never be able to revert back to
that copy.
Also, the processing of "cvs unedit" will have to change drastically to ensure
atomicity. For example, if you decide to revert files and only some of the
succeed, you will wind up with an inconsistent set of files.
>> The patch very useful to me the way I did it. Again, you're welcome to
>patch
>> the patch if you want.
>
>Nope - I will ignore that patch since my patch to your patch is to revert to
>the previous version 'cause I see no gain in your patch at the moment....
You can do this, too.
>> The fact that they are documented /and/ consistent makes them not side
>effects
>> (ie predictable behaviour).
>
>Well, still all you get is a well documented and predicatble side effects...
My definition of "side effect" is something that occurs that can affect another
operation that's orthogonal to the original operation. If someone edited the
backup or did several series of modifications and "cvs edit", then a "cvs
unedit" sometime down the road will be affected.
What's your definition. How does it apply to my patch?
>> It's named .#foo.c right now (in my patch). I don't see why your grep
>tools
>> would pick that up. I'll look into tagging the revision number on the end
>of
>> it, but it might affect other commands' backups (IMHO, this is A Good
>Thing,
>> anyway).
>
>It will pick it up 'cause grep works on the file extenstions. That is why to
>change extension in crutial for that patch to work nice way with the grep
>tools. ".#foo._c" would do.
Right, sometimes I forget some people actually use Windows and DOS shells. I
think tagging on the version number would be A Good Thing. More precisely, a
"cvs edit" backup should probably look like ".#foo.c.1.2+". Note the '+' that
denotes that there might be some local modifications within this backup.
>> I don't understand. The patch I posted solves a set of problems (but
>perhaps
>> not yours). I, in no way, hardcoded anything specific to my company. The
>> solution is generic.
>
>You are hardcoding your working pattern - drive carefully here.
I don't think that I am since (I think) we both agree that a trustable reversion
is impossible within the context of CVS alone. It is not impossible within the
context of, for example, WinCVS, though.
>> Yes, but "cvs edit" and "cvs unedit" NEVER worked the way you or the
>others
>> expected it to. WinCVS forces the behaviour you see now by wrapping CVS.
>> That's a perfectly good solution to your problem.
>
>We don't really have the problem with edit/unedit. We will have the problem
>after your patch I think... :)
Not if you patch WinCVS.
>><snip> Unfortunately, you guys seem to
>have a
>> different idea of what CVS is than I do. Perhaps you should look at the
>code
>> yourself to see how difficult (or even impossible) it is to do what you
>want
>> (specially given that "cvs edit" and "cvs unedit" should work offline).
>
>No, I think our ideas are quite close. THere are small differences on the
>details, but I am sure we can work it out. I believe that you are able to
>make it comfortable for both sides.
Not if valid reversions are impossible for "cvs unedit".
Noel
This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan & Co. Incorporated, its
subsidiaries and affiliates.
