> [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.10.05 14:28:01
> >Ok, then take this situation. I see a problem in this file. I want to
> >edit it so I type "cvs edit <file1>" Then with further
> investigation I
> >see the problem is really in file2, so I do "cvs edit <file2>" and
> >then make my changes in file2. Then I am done with editing all files
> >in this directory and am ready to checkin, so I do "cvs commit"
> >Why does cvs unedit the file that was modified and not
> unedit the file
> >that was not modified.
Take this situation: I see problems in file1 and file2, so I "cvs edit file1
file2".
I fix file1 and "cvs commit".
Why should cvs unedit file2? I still want to make changes to file2. When I
did the commit, I wasn't intending to commit file2, only file1.
The basic principle is that cvs shouldn't be doing too much guessing about
what I mean. It has to "guess" that I was committing the file I changed. It
doesn't necessarily follow that I also meant to unedit any files I had put
an edit on. If I wanted to that, I'd use "unedit" instead of "commit".
Jerry
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
