Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Instead, perhaps it should do something like: "if the specified >> pathname, together with the usual other criteria (-r, -D, sticky >> attributes, etc.), selects more than one *revision*, complain". >> >> The existing (I think) test cares about theoretical ambigity; my >> proposed one cares only about the practical problem -- the >> impossibility of stuffing two unrelated revisions into one >> sandbox file. If an operation isn't trying to do that, >> forbidding it on theoretical grounds seems pointlessly annoying.
I completely agree. I hope this is implemented for the next 1.11.x. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
