I've posted my patches to the RCVS project on SourceForge. The "cvs unedit"
implementation will not unmodify the file. If you want to have unedit
automatically unmodify files you would either have to wrap CVS in a script or
submit a patch that allows unmodify operations along with "cvs unedit". I would
prefer a flag to "cvs unedit" if you were to go with the latter solution.
But, really, the reason I kept this functionality out of "cvs unedit" is to keep
the command simple and minimal as is the philosophy of most Unix tools
(including CVS). You'd still be able to do what you want by using a wrapper
script or function.
Noel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.19 09:01:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Base directory, in CVS directory
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Noel L Yap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
I agree that this feature should be modified, and that we should get
rid of "Base". However, I kind of like the way unedit works today.
When I do an unedit I usually want to revert to the way the file was
before the edit. Could we please keep the behaviour of unedit as it
is?
Is somebody working on or planning these modifications at the moment?
If there is a patch available, I'd be very interested.
- Helge Penne
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.
