I have also looked up the sources of CVS. In commit.c, there's the following
comment: (I'm quoting)
/* Sending only the names of the files which were modified, added,
or removed means that the server will only do an up-to-date
check on those files. This is different from local CVS and
previous versions of client/server CVS, but it probably is a Good
Thing, or at least Not Such A Bad Thing. */
So it seems like this behavior was intentional. I'm sure you realize the
consequences of this. I just wonder how come this does not cause problems in
the development of large projects that are kept in CVS.
Is there an intention to fix (/change) this?
Shlomo
-----Original Message-----
From: Reinstein, Shlomo
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !
I've just compiled and tried CVS 1.11.5 -- same behavior. Up-to-date check
does not work correctly when using client/server.
Shlomo
-----Original Message-----
From: Reinstein, Shlomo
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:49 PM
To: Guus Leeuw jr.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !
This happened with 1.10.8 and also with 1.11.1p1. No related fix has been
mentioned in the news file for CVS versions 1.12-1.15.
Shlomo
-----Original Message-----
From: Guus Leeuw jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:07 PM
To: Reinstein, Shlomo
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !
Shlomo,
Which version was this? 1.11.5? Or the older version?
Cheers,
Guus
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von
Reinstein, Shlomo
Gesendet: zondag 23 februari 2003 9:24
An: Eric Siegerman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it
sho uld have !
Hi,
I have ran the test with the repo local to the CVS server, and it shows the
same behavior. Which brings me to the conclusion that the client/server
protocol does not function as expected. Here's the scenario: (Can be done by
the same user on the same machine)
[ rest snipped ]
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 13/02/2003
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
