Jim Nasby wrote:

What about my suggestion of runing CVS a second time if we get extraneous files the first go-round? I'm guessing there'd have to be a sleep in there as well...


The trouble with running "cvs update" a second time is that it will be just as liable to fail as the first run. So I am following your suggestion, but with this modification: after a sleep we will run "cvs status" which will not have the same issues, because it doesn't create or delete anything, and will show us any extraneous files/directories that might be present.

cheers

andrew




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to