Larry,
> > > > > or will the CVS version of validate_repo work with CVSNT's > > > format? > > > > No idea - I suspect there would be a good chance it'd consider some > > things as errors. > > I don't think so. It's a fairly standard perl script that uses normal > CVS commands to examine the files. It does need direct access to the In that case it could run but not tell you what you want to know, see below... > It runs "cvs rlog" to get the revision history for each file and then > runs "cvs co" on the "interesting" revisions (the root of the > trunk and > the tip of every other branch); as long as the checkouts > work, the file > is considered OK. Without going back to the messages, I thought Matthew (who reported the problems) said that the log completes OK (just with the odd messages) and that checking out the versions log complains about also works ok - so my guess is that the script would also run ok (since it's not looking for specific 'odd' messages - just return codes). CVSNT (for better or worse) seems to often return success where CVS returns fail - it confuses the heck out of people who are moving from one to the other, but CVSNT old-timers rely on the CVSNT return codes making for a lovelly catch-22... I think the logic is that if any of the checkout has succeeded then the checkout returns success (just some bits have failed?). From memory update does one thing and checkout the other... Regards, Arthur
