[ On Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 01:04:34 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ] > Subject: Re: CVS Update Behaviour > > Actually, using trivial modules exposes the problem as well. Consider > the following three module definitions: > > top project > part1-mod project/part1 > part2-mod project/part2
You've created an alias without really telling CVS about it. This is like aliasing a pointer in C. How could even a magical new CVS which had full rename support understand what you intend? Not even the CVS manual suggests using such ambiguous (broken) constructs (though older examples, and IIRC the original paper, do suggest such dangerous things) I've only once ever created modules like above, and in that case I was very careful to document that the 'top' module was only ever to be used by the release manager. > Side note: I can find only one reference to a problem with the modules > database at all in the Cederqvist manual. And it says to not to rely on > misleading progress messages during checkout of ampersand modules. There > is no mention of the problems that have been discussed at length in this > forum in the past. Indeed the CVS manual is seriously lacking w.r.t. documenting the implications and limitations about modules support. I've never claimed otherwise. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs