[ On Friday, February 18, 2000 at 16:25:44 (-0500), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: let's all take turns ranting
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/17/2000 12:09:17 PM
> >[ On Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 21:22:22 (-0800), Jerry Nairn wrote: ]
> >> Subject: RE: let's all take turns ranting
> >>
> >> There it is. And the three supporting statements are true. The flaw in this
> >> logic is that statements 1 and 3 depend on different definitions of "cvs
> >> managed directory." They can't both be true at the same time, because some
> >
> >You're absolutely wrong. They are both true at the same time. They
> >*MUST* be!
>
> According to your statement, "cvs edit file" within a directory with no CVS
> admin subdirectory but whose parent directory has a CVS admin subdirectory will
> work. It does not. It also doesn't work for "cvs up file" under the same
> situation. I think this was gone over before.
You're confusing so many concepts that it's no wonder you're not
understanding what I'm trying to say.
The fact is that *any* directory within a working directory is, and
always will be, and indee *must* be, a part of that working directory,
regardless of whether or not it currently has administrative files
inside of it. Whether or not a given CVS command works in any given
directory is entirely dependent on exaclty what is in that directory at
the time, and exactly what command is used.
This is extremely simple and basic boys and girls! Perhaps it's so
simple and basic that all you people looking to argue for argument's
sake are overlooking the obvious on purpose?
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
