"Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> Derek Price wrote:
> > "Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> [...]
> > > Here's why: the same revision marked by the static tag might be
> > > present on multiple branches, due to CVS's optimization of not
> >
> > No, no, no. I totally agree. I meant that i
"Derek R. Price" wrote:
> "Cameron, Steve" wrote:
>
> > Derek Price wrote:
> > > "Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Here's why: the same revision marked by the static tag might be
> > > > present on multiple branches, due to CVS's optimization of not
> > >
> > > No,
Derek Price wrote:
> "Cameron, Steve" wrote:
[...]
> > Here's why: the same revision marked by the static tag might be
> > present on multiple branches, due to CVS's optimization of not
>
> No, no, no. I totally agree. I meant that it would be easy for a novice
> user
>
J. Cone writes:
>
> I don't know about tag-vals, but normally I get a complaint saying the tag
> doesn't exist.
Only if the tag doesn't exist anywhere in the repository. If the tag
exists somewhere in the repository, it would have been recorded in the
val-tags file and you get the behavior Stev
"Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> Derek Price wrote:
> > compound of a static tag and ".origin". I think it would be easy for a
> > user to
> > expect that statictag.origin would return the origin of the branch that
> > the
> > static tag is on (it doesn't - it's returnning empty...).
> [smc] T
Derek Price wrote:
> "Cameron, Steve" wrote:
>
> > I wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Derek Price wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, it applied and compiled fine, but I've already found a
> bug:
> > > if
> > > the executable can find the tag in val-tags, it won't provide an
> > > error
> > >
At 16:56 30/01/01 -0600, Cameron, Steve wrote:
>
> cvs update -r BranchA.origin
>
> What should happen?
>
> What currently happens is something like this:
>
> cvs update: Makefile is no longer in the repository
> cvs update: bl
"Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> I wrote:
> [...]
> > Derek Price wrote:
> >
> > Okay, it applied and compiled fine, but I've already found a bug:
> > if
> > the executable can find the tag in val-tags, it won't provide an
> > error
> > when the specified tag doesn't exist in
I wrote:
[...]
> Derek Price wrote:
>
> Okay, it applied and compiled fine, but I've already found a bug:
> if
> the executable can find the tag in val-tags, it won't provide an
> error
> when the specified tag doesn't exist in a file.In the above case, it
> see
Derek R. Price writes:
>
> Okay, it applied and compiled fine, but I've already found a bug: if
> the executable can find the tag in val-tags, it won't provide an error
> when the specified tag doesn't exist in a file.
In what context? That's a fairly common response to a non-existent tag
that
Hey, alright! feedback!
Derek Price wrote:
> Okay, it applied and compiled fine, but I've already found a bug: if
> the executable can find the tag in val-tags, it won't provide an error
> when the specified tag doesn't exist in a file.In the above case, it
> seems to be assuming the requested
Karl Fogel wrote:
> I haven't looked at the patch, but it seems that the most important
> part will be the documentation -- guiding people as to how to use
> these features. I hope it's thorough. :-)
Short of examples, it could probably use an attachment to the "Branching
and Merging" section,
Okay, it applied and compiled fine, but I've already found a bug: if
the executable can find the tag in val-tags, it won't provide an error
when the specified tag doesn't exist in a file. In the above case, it
seems to be assuming the requested file is empty. This seems to happen
regardless of
I haven't looked at the patch, but it seems that the most important
part will be the documentation -- guiding people as to how to use
these features. I hope it's thorough. :-)
-K
"Cameron, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
> [...]
> > Seems useful; if understand it corre
Karl Fogel wrote:
[...]
> Seems useful; if understand it correctly, it can alleviate the need
> for branch-point tags, right?
>
[smc] Yes, that's what the ".origin" part does
And, the ".trunk" part
can do essentially what "cvs update -A" does, except
it doesn
Karl Fogel wrote:
>"Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Any immediate thoughts on Steve's .trunk/.origin patch if I do the
initial
>> review & testing? I will post my thoughts after review and testing
and
>> before applying, regardless.
>
>Seems useful; if understand it correctly, i
"Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any immediate thoughts on Steve's .trunk/.origin patch if I do the initial
> review & testing? I will post my thoughts after review and testing and
> before applying, regardless.
Seems useful; if understand it correctly, it can alleviate the need
fo
"Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>
> > But the majority of patches received don't fit these qualifications.
> > This isn't meant to be some sort of off-putting, elitist statement,
> > and I hope it doesn't sound that way -- the same thing can be said of
> > 90% of the patches sent to 9
Karl Fogel wrote:
> But the majority of patches received don't fit these qualifications.
> This isn't meant to be some sort of off-putting, elitist statement,
> and I hope it doesn't sound that way -- the same thing can be said of
> 90% of the patches sent to 90% of the free software projects in
I'd like to second Larry's response (though I'm less familiar with the
progress of the Renegade CVS project -- I haven't been following it
much).
As far as I can tell, the CVS development team generally responds
promptly and positively to useful patches. Here, "useful" means
patches that follow
Paul Sander writes:
>
> I seem to recall that the Renegade project was created specifically for the
> reason that the official developers of CVS were unwilling to work with
> Noel and others who needed various bug fixes and features. At that time,
> (a couple of years ago) the official developer
I seem to recall that the Renegade project was created specifically for the
reason that the official developers of CVS were unwilling to work with
Noel and others who needed various bug fixes and features. At that time,
(a couple of years ago) the official developers were unresponsive to the
poin
22 matches
Mail list logo
