In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
 
> When working with local repository copies, the following situation
> occurs (with the latest CVS 1.10.8.1 version as picked up via anon-cvs):
> 
> 1. The repository was copied from the remote site to the local site
> 2. The working directory was checked out from the local site
> 3. Some files in the top-level of the working directory are edited
> 4. Some files in sub-directories of the working directory are edited
> 5. A commit has to be performed to the original repository, so
>    a "cvs -d <path-to-original-repository> commit ..." is used from the
>    top-level.
> 
> The effect now is that CVS _DOES_ pick up all modified files for creating the
> file list for the log message (I can see it in the editor on the CVS: lines),
> but the commit _DOES NOT_ pick them up. Only the files from all subdirectories
> are comitted. All top-level files still are untouched. If I now perform
> exactly the same commit command again, the remaining modified files are _NOW_
> picked up and comitted. 
> [...]
> So, I've the following questions to the CVS gurus:
> 
> 1. What is the real intention behind this nasty and IMHO inconsistent
>    behaviour for "cvs commit", when the global option -d is used?  The code
>    comments speak about spurious conflicts and such things at one position and
>    at the same time questions the behaviour at other positions.
> 
> 2. I want to workaround this nasty behaviour by forcing CVS to always
>    pick up also files in the top-level on "cvs -d ... commit". Where is
>    _exactly_ the piece of code which controls this. Please don't say "just
>    look in commit.c and recurse.c". I've already fiddled around with CVS'
>    internals here. But I still was unable to force CVS to always pick up all
>    files. So, which piece of code has to be patched?
> 
> Please sched some light on this problem. Thanks.

Still nobody who can help with this? I would appreciate it a lot if some of
the CVS gurus here could have a look and help me with this problem. Thanks.

Yours,
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
                                       www.engelschall.com

Reply via email to