Kevin Layer writes: > > Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Instead, perhaps it should do something like: "if the specified > >> pathname, together with the usual other criteria (-r, -D, sticky > >> attributes, etc.), selects more than one *revision*, complain". > >> > >> The existing (I think) test cares about theoretical ambigity; my > >> proposed one cares only about the practical problem -- the > >> impossibility of stuffing two unrelated revisions into one > >> sandbox file. If an operation isn't trying to do that, > >> forbidding it on theoretical grounds seems pointlessly annoying. > > I completely agree. I hope this is implemented for the next 1.11.x.
Don't hold your breath. Implementing this would require such significant changes to CVS that I'd be tempted to call it 2.x. -Larry Jones Just when I thought this junk was beginning to make sense. -- Calvin _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
