CVS automation kicked in for you. It recognized a concurrent change and instructed you to update your local copy before checking in the changes. Updating before checking in is a sound policy that avoids those errors. Allows you to do a local integration test prior to checking in.
You just had a demonstration of why you don't have to worry about concurrent updates: CVS let you know that you need to update automatically. Updating is what does the merge. You can then check in assuming there are no conflicts. CVS automatically detects conflicts; no worries. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Kaeppler Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Working on sources in parallel Hello, just recently we had the problem that two people had checked out the same module and were working on it independently. When the second one committed his sources again, CVS reported an error (I can't reproduce it 100% here, sorry) about the sources not being up-to-date. However, I thought that would be exactly what CVS takes care of, in fact making sure that noone has to bother about who else has checked out a version and modifies it, and merges all changes together when committing it back. I haven't seen anything about this issue in the info pages either. Am I missing something? -- Matthias Kaeppler _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
