Derek Robert Price wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Hi Greg! >> >> This sure sounds like a bug/oversight to me. >> > > I think I may have rejected this in the past. I'm not quite sure what > I was thinking. Well, I think I may, but it wasn't consistant with > CVS operation. Anyhow, I'll second (or third) that this is a > bug/oversight now.
I thought I remembered this issue. Here it is: <http://ccvs.cvshome.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53> There's at least the start of a patch there too if you want it. > >> Greg McGary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Consider this scenario: >>> >>> * check-out or update to a branch "foo". >>> * create a file, sticky tag is "foo". Good. >>> * remove a file, sticky tag remains "foo". Good. >>> * update to another branch tag with `-r bar', or back to trunk `-A'. >>> The added file and the removed file still have "foo" as their sticky >>> tags. Bad. (All other files have properly updated sticky tags) >>> >>> It smells like a bug, but I thought I'd see if there was some subtle, >>> inscrutable reason why this behavior might be desirable. >>> >>> If it's a bug, I volunteer to fix it, since I need it done within a >>> week. 8^) >>> >>> Some possible wrinkles: >>> >>> * removed file in old branch has different revision in new branch: >>> should treat as conflict >>> >>> * removed file in old branch has already been removed in new branch: >>> seems like a noop, and the removal should be considered already >>> complete. >>> >> >> I'm not sure I like the idea of losing the `locally removed' mark, >> but I suppose doing as you suggest is consistent with e.g., how >> a merge works when merging in a change that's already present >> in working sources. >> > > I'll second this too. Greg, did you ever fix this? > >>> * file added to old branch already exists in new branch: >>> should treat as conflict (unless perhaps file content is identical, >>> in which case the addition should be considered already complete?) >>> >> >> I don't feel too strongly about it, but am inclined to say >> it deserves a conflict even if they happen to be identical. >> > > Why? What's the difference between that and the "Changes already > contained in X" change merge analogy? Derek -- *8^) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public key available from www.keyserver.net - Key ID 5ECF1609 Fingerprint 511D DCD9 04CE 48A9 CC07 A421 BFBF 5CC2 56A6 AB0E Get CVS support at http://2-wit.com -- [Let us] go on in doing with [the] pen what in other times was done with the sword, [and] show that reformation is more practicable by operating on the mind than on the body of man. - Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1792 _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
