[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 05/05/2000 01:13:29 PM
>[ On Friday, May 5, 2000 at 09:55:20 (-0500), Dave Sherohman wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: "cvs checkout -c" again
>>
>> On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 11:29:17AM -0600, Win32 M$ wrote:
>> > Agree, it should. Or, should we have 'cvs ls' and 'cvs cd' and 'cvs pwd' to
>> > "walk" the tree in the repository?
>>
>> I like that solution. (We already have 'cvs rm', after all...)
>
>Don't forget that "cvs rm" is a second-class sub-command -- it's just an
>alias for "cvs remove". If a repository list command is implemented it
>should be called "cvs list" and *maybe* with an alias "cvs ls".
This makes sense.
>BTW, I don't think "cvs cd" and "cvs pwd" are either useful or easy to
>implement in any sensible and safe way. CVS isn't a process that sticks
>around like a shell -- it's effectively stateless and making it stateful
>in one scenario would be: a) hard; b) error-prone, and c) confusing.
I completely agree (though I didn't state it as articulately).
>It would be nice to have a way to get "descriptions" (eg. comments) from
>the modules file without having to check it out (i.e. with "cvs co -c",
>which currently isn't really a "cat" replacement).
Hmmm. Now that you mentioned it, "cvs co -c" is bloat. It affords nothing more
than what "cvs co -p CVSROOT/modules" gives you (I don't know why I didn't see
this before). On top of that, it probably doesn't interact well with the other
"cvs co" flags.
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.
