"Win32 M$" schrieb:
> Hi All,
>
> Theory:
> **********************************************************************
> Base directory, in CVS directory
> Base
>
> If watches are in use, then an edit command stores the original copy of the
> file in the Base directory. This allows the unedit command to operate even
> if it is unable to communicate with the server.
> **********************************************************************
>
> That is a great feature, but the problem is that it is the copy with the
> exact same name as an original. Then, if I try to grep for the files
> recursively in some directory, I will get the files in the "Base" as well.
> More - that files seems to have read-only cleared, so in the end quite often
> I will edit it instead of the real file... Very annoying... :(
I agree completely: a great feature, but not optimally implemented. I also have
had the problem you describe, and I think it will happen again and again if you
are not very, very, very careful.
The best procedure in the current state would be to exclude the Base directory
from the recursive descent you describe, but I doubt if every tool offers this
possibility, especially on non-Unix systems.
> I think that the file should have different extension (suffix) so it won't
> get into the search results AND / OR it should have a read only set, so even
> if I get to pick it up with the search it will not be so easy to modify it
> by mistake.
I think both would be useful: the read only state to prevent accidental
modifications and the additional suffix (maybe ",b" ?) to make it easier not to
include them into recursive searches.
Best regards,
Martin
