I have also looked up the sources of CVS. In commit.c, there's the following comment: (I'm quoting) /* Sending only the names of the files which were modified, added, or removed means that the server will only do an up-to-date check on those files. This is different from local CVS and previous versions of client/server CVS, but it probably is a Good Thing, or at least Not Such A Bad Thing. */
So it seems like this behavior was intentional. I'm sure you realize the consequences of this. I just wonder how come this does not cause problems in the development of large projects that are kept in CVS. Is there an intention to fix (/change) this? Shlomo -----Original Message----- From: Reinstein, Shlomo Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it sho uld have ! I've just compiled and tried CVS 1.11.5 -- same behavior. Up-to-date check does not work correctly when using client/server. Shlomo -----Original Message----- From: Reinstein, Shlomo Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:49 PM To: Guus Leeuw jr. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it sho uld have ! This happened with 1.10.8 and also with 1.11.1p1. No related fix has been mentioned in the news file for CVS versions 1.12-1.15. Shlomo -----Original Message----- From: Guus Leeuw jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 12:07 PM To: Reinstein, Shlomo Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it sho uld have ! Shlomo, Which version was this? 1.11.5? Or the older version? Cheers, Guus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Reinstein, Shlomo Gesendet: zondag 23 februari 2003 9:24 An: Eric Siegerman; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it sho uld have ! Hi, I have ran the test with the repo local to the CVS server, and it shows the same behavior. Which brings me to the conclusion that the client/server protocol does not function as expected. Here's the scenario: (Can be done by the same user on the same machine) [ rest snipped ] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 13/02/2003 _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs