On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:01:30PM -0500, Larry Jones wrote:
> Eric Siegerman writes:
> >
> > CVS should probably print a warning in this case, but it doesn't.
>
> "This case" is updating a file with a sticky tag or date, which seems
> like a good idea to me, too. Anyone disagree?
Sticky *revision* tag or date (which is what I'm sure you meant :-).
Issue: should CVS always complain, or only when it would actually
have done something? The two options are:
a. print a warning if a sticky revision tag or date is
encountered during "cvs update"
b. Like (a), but only if the revision named by that tag/date is
different from the one CVS would otherwise have updated to
Personally, I'd much prefer (b). If the sticky tag/date names
the revision I'd have gotten anyway, then the end state I was
requesting has been achieved; my sandbox is indeed up to date.
It's only if the tag/date has prevented me from synchronizing
completely that I need to make a decision.
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
A distributed system is one on which I cannot get any work done,
because a machine I have never heard of has crashed.
- Leslie Lamport
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
