Eric Siegerman writes:
>
> I agree that his suggested syntax is cumbersome. But look behind
> that, and what he really needs is simply that CVS follow standard
> UNIX file-naming semantics: given that /a/b/sandbox is in fact a
> CVS sandbox, why should CVS care which of these is used to name a
> file c/d within it?
> cd /a/b/sandbox/c; cvs XXX d
> cd /a/b/sandbox; cvs XXX c/d
> cvs XXX /a/b/sandbox/c/d
>
> As with other UNIX commands, these three sequences should behave
> identically.
Yes, they should, and for *most* subcommands, they do; but add is
specifically documented as taking file *names*, not *paths*. As the
manual says:
Unlike most other commands, the add command is not recursive.
You cannot even type `cvs add foo/bar'! Instead, you have to
$ cd foo
$ cvs add bar
(In fact, you *can* get away with `cvs add foo/bar' in many cases, but
not all.)
> One likely response is, "nobody's written the code; if you want
> to, feel free." Fair enough. But that's a very different answer
> from "CVS *should not* do this".
This, I have no problem with CVS doing -- feel free to write the code.
:-)
But I still don't think CVS should be changing working directories,
which is what the original request was.
-Larry Jones
I hate being good. -- Calvin
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
