Reinstein, Shlomo writes:
>
> - User A checks-out the latest version of project p.
> - User B checks-out the latest version of project p.
> - User A changes one of the files in p, and commits his changes to the
> repository.
> - User B changes one of the files in p (not the same file that user A
> changed).
> - User B commits his changes to p, without first updating his working copy.
> Against all expectations, user B succeeds to commit even though his working
> copy is not up to date, leading to an unstable latest version of the project
> in the repository.
CVS only demands that what you're committing be up to date. If B had
done a simple "cvs commit", then CVS would have examined the entire
directory and complained about the file modified by A being out of date.
Instead, B apparently commited just the file he had modified ("cvs
commit foo"), so CVS only checked that file, found it up to date, and
allowed the commit.
-Larry Jones
See, it all makes sense. See? See?? They never see. -- Calvin
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
