pserver import problem
hi all: I am a newbie of CVS. I installed a CVS using pserver mode. but I can't import a directory structure for a new project. (only the subdirectory with some file can be import, the empty subdirectory was omited) I haven't meet this problem with local mode. is it a feature or a bug? thanks.
Re: What is Cederqvist?
[ On Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 14:44:29 (-0700), Craig Saunders wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? You are the "old-timer" that I referred to. And as I recall, you did not use the full name of the manual... sarcasm what was that I said about using "the CVS manual" again!?!?!?!!? /sarcasm Furthermore, I would have initiated and kept an FAQ of the form you now suggest if I hadn't been shot down in flames. (It's about the level of contribution I could commit to since I'm not as good as other contributors at bit twiddling.) If I recall correctly the majority of information that it seemed you were interested in documenting was stuff that really really really needed to go in the manual. It's bad enough that people publish bits of good documentation on their web pages instead of submitting it for inclusion in the manual. Having a FAQ document that includes such information, even one posted to this forum, is still a far less than ideal way to provide technical documentation to those who require it. Meanwhile 99.9% of the "frequent" questions I see posted are already clearly documented in the CVS manual, and the remainder are there but perhaps not clear enough or easy enough to find. BTW, although I believe exactly what I say above, I was definitely not the first to say it Normally, I keep my whining to myself but this was an opportunity to demonstrate that you need to consider how your public comments are received. If you had made a positive comment, or at least tried to figure out why I made the suggestion in the first place, we would already have an FAQ. If you really wanted to write a FAQ you would have. Nothing I or anyone else says or does can prevent you from publishing whatever you wish, in any public forum you wish, including this one. As a result it would seem to me that you must have agreed with what has been said on the relative lack of utility of any FAQ on this subject! -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is Cederqvist?
[ On , September 14, 2000 at 17:28:30 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? Greg A Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ On Tuesday, September 12, 2000 at 17:15:25 (-0700), Tom Werges wrote: ] In my opinion, referring to a standard document by the last name of its author is not snooty or superior. I suppose that depends on who you are. In my opinion it does very much the opposite of giving credit to the author, especially when used It's very common practice in academia and has been picked up by some related communities. Consider "Stevens" for _Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment_ or _Unix Network Programming_ depending on context, "Knuth" for _The Art of Computer Programming_, "KR" for _The C Programming Language_, etc. I'm very well aware of those usages of the author's name. Perhaps you've missed the significance of the word "the" in the phrase used (i.e. "The Cederqvist"). When you refer to a book by its author's name it is generally only acceptable to do so in a context where you are referring to what the author says. For example: "Stevens says clearly that the IP layer must support default routes." In those cases it's irrelevent whether you refer to what he might have said in print or in person. If you ask "When did he say that?" I can answer "In his TCP/IP tome vol.1 pg. 114." Indeed in common colloquial speech many of us might contract "Have you got your copy of Stevens handy?" into something slangish like "Got your Stevens there?". Such slang shouldn't really be used in written communications though, especially not in a public forum like info-cvs. Referring to a book as "The last-name" is objectifying and disembodying the person who wrote the book and reducing them to one sole example of their creative efforts (even if they did only create one such work to the best of your knowledge!). The question should not be "what" but "who". The fact that it was asked in the way it was proves my point succinctly. Not only that but despite the very major contribution by Per Cederqvist in creating the original version of the current CVS manual, it is not his alone any longer. Many of us have made significant changes to the CVS manual since it was first adopted as the official CVS documentation. The appearance of the phrase "The Cederqvist" has *always* grated on my nerves and I deplore its use! -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why wast time to write a FAQ?
[ On Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 17:55:20 (-0700), Craig Saunders wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? If Greg thinks it would be a good idea and he (and others) would be willing to forward their answers of FAQ's, I would be willing to edit and compile the FAQ list, post it regularly and keep it on a publicly accessible web site. (I would also scan the mailing list for potential FAQ's and proactively update the FAQ list. And, with a little reluctance, reconcile when old-timers have different opinions on how to answer a question.) I would much much sooner see someone, anyone, take note of questions that frequently appear in this (and any other related) forum and to (re)write the manual sections that have thus far been inadequate in providing the information sought by those asking the questions Hopefully that person would be given have commit access to at least the documentation sub-directory of the shared repository once they've provided one or two such fixes to the manual. I'd suggest that this person take the time to query (offline) people who ask FAQs to find out directly why they didn't find the answer they were looking for in the manual. That way they can find out whether or not the person even looked in the manual in the first place. IIRC it was Per Cederqvist who first decided that a FAQ was a bad form of information presentation in this context and though I originally was wary of losing the then gargantuan FAQ, I've since not missed it one little bit. There were at least several people far more worried about the disappearance of the FAQ at the time, but it's editor agreed with Per and given the massive effort that would have been required to continue to maintain the full FAQ nobody was willing to step up and take it on. Perhaps if the person editing the FAQ were also dedicated to updating the manual and keeping it relevant to user needs then I wouldn't argue against a general FAQ. However with very limited volunteer resources I'm quite certain that maintenance of an FAQ should be the lowest possible priority in the project. BTW, this is a generic issue that applies to any software package which has an active user forum such as info-cvs is. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SSH and PServer
[ On Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 20:17:14 (-0500), Mike Castle wrote: ] Subject: Re: SSH and PServer On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 04:25:04PM -0400, Christian, Joanne wrote: I'm trying to set up pserver on a redhat linux machine that is running ssh. Umm... either user pserver or use ssh. (well, you can use ssh tunneling to access pserver, but that's awfully silly). and quite insecure in any but the most stringently monitored environments, not to mention still totally lacking in accountability. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is Cederqvist?
Greg, you are so cute when you are like this. Greg A. Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] Referring to a book as "The last-name" is objectifying and disembodying the person who wrote the book and reducing them to one sole example of their creative efforts (even if they did only create one such work to the best of your knowledge!). It does not. I'm the author of 3 books, and it is actually quite pleasant to know that you've written a book that is well enough received to become known by your name. Mark.
A few questions on logs, history and rdiff commands
Well after reading the manual a couple of times, i have a few questions about gathering information on files...First, is there any way, other than using Log command, to get file's log message? Can i use Log if i don't have a local copy of the directory structure...When i run history command on a certain module or directory, i am still able to retrieve information... Please, help
Re: What is Cederqvist?
Please please no more Cederqvist arguments! This list has enough traffic normally without such things... you guys should take it off line if you'd like to discuss it further. Thanks, - Casey
What is Cederqvist? for the FAQ
At this point in the discussion, I would like to nominate the question "What is Cederqvist?" as the most important entry in a CVS FAQ. Please note that one cannot RTFM until one knows the answer to this question. The next most important entry in the FAQ should be: "How do I unsubscribe to this mailing list?" :-) for the humor impaired But I'm only half joking. There are a couple of essential questions that are probably best answered in a short FAQ that is posted posted periodically to this list. Other important questions may be: "Where do I find the CVS Manual?" "Where do I find CVS for my platform?" "What important and impressive groups are using CVS so I can convince my management that they should listen to me instead of using [MKS|SourceSafe|...]?"Whoops... I'm getting silly again! After that, RTFM. I believe that someone already volunteered to write a FAQ. That sounds great to me. Fred == Fred Brehm, Sarnoff Corporation, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is Cederqvist?
[ On Friday, September 15, 2000 at 23:04:40 (+0800), Mark Harrison wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? It does not. I'm the author of 3 books, and it is actually quite pleasant to know that you've written a book that is well enough received to become known by your name. Like I said, it would depend on who you are And I don't speak for Per Cederqvist either, but I have written at least a few small paragraphs in the CVS manual. So which one of your books is "The Harrison" anyway? Not to degrade any of your books, but that makes it sounds more like a wrestling move or something else physical There's also still the other non-trivial issue of just who actually wrote whatever anyone might be referring to if they refer to the CVS manual as if it is the initial author of the first version. For example you'd be on a lot thinner ice if you referred to "TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2: The Implementation" by Gary R. Wright and W. Richard Stevens as "The Stevens" (or even in the more proper way as "Stevens says"). You can only do that for vol.1 and vol.3. In the same way people don't call "The C Programming Language" "The Ritchie", but rather "KR". (And I'm not thinking of myself here either -- my contribution to the manual is very tiny in comparison.) Though I haven't managed to get a working connection that'll let me run "cvs annotate" on the manual source, I'm reasonably certain that by now it would only be fair to refer to the authors of the manual at least as "Cederqvist et al". -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why wast time to write a FAQ?
A manual does not provide the same service that an FAQ provides. The primary difference is the organization of the information. An FAQ is organized as a list of questions and answers so that readers can find the question that they are interested in. A reference manual is organized by feature or functionality so that readers can find the feature they want to learn more about. A user guide is organized by process (or use) so that readers can find out how the software applies to the way they do their "work". The above assumes that the information is the same. That may be the case but in practical terms since the focus of each is different, the information included isn't the same. For example, the FAQ would probably give a simple or direct answer to the question and reference "the CVS manual" for the complete answer or related topics. To assume that one form of documentation will serve all types of readers and their diverse needs is shortsighted. To assume that one form is always more important than the other forms is also shortsighted. To assume that someone would update one form while leaving the other alone is yet again demonstrating lack of foresight. (For the dim-witted, of course you update the CVS manual if you find something that isn't documented correctly. But no matter how complete the CVS manual is, it will not eliminate FAQ's because it isn't organized in a QA structure.) By the way, please forget that I mentioned anything about maintaining an FAQ. It's obvious that it wouldn't improve anything nor keep "old-timers" from flaming newbies. Goodbye, Craig - Original Message - From: Greg A. Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Craig Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Craig R. Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 1:13 AM Subject: why wast time to write a FAQ? [ On Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 17:55:20 (-0700), Craig Saunders wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? If Greg thinks it would be a good idea and he (and others) would be willing to forward their answers of FAQ's, I would be willing to edit and compile the FAQ list, post it regularly and keep it on a publicly accessible web site. (I would also scan the mailing list for potential FAQ's and proactively update the FAQ list. And, with a little reluctance, reconcile when old-timers have different opinions on how to answer a question.) I would much much sooner see someone, anyone, take note of questions that frequently appear in this (and any other related) forum and to (re)write the manual sections that have thus far been inadequate in providing the information sought by those asking the questions Hopefully that person would be given have commit access to at least the documentation sub-directory of the shared repository once they've provided one or two such fixes to the manual. I'd suggest that this person take the time to query (offline) people who ask FAQs to find out directly why they didn't find the answer they were looking for in the manual. That way they can find out whether or not the person even looked in the manual in the first place. IIRC it was Per Cederqvist who first decided that a FAQ was a bad form of information presentation in this context and though I originally was wary of losing the then gargantuan FAQ, I've since not missed it one little bit. There were at least several people far more worried about the disappearance of the FAQ at the time, but it's editor agreed with Per and given the massive effort that would have been required to continue to maintain the full FAQ nobody was willing to step up and take it on. Perhaps if the person editing the FAQ were also dedicated to updating the manual and keeping it relevant to user needs then I wouldn't argue against a general FAQ. However with very limited volunteer resources I'm quite certain that maintenance of an FAQ should be the lowest possible priority in the project. BTW, this is a generic issue that applies to any software package which has an active user forum such as info-cvs is. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why wast time to write a FAQ?
A manual does not provide the same service that an FAQ provides. The primary difference is the organization of the information. An FAQ is organized as a list of questions and answers so that readers can find the question that they are interested in. A reference manual is organized by feature or functionality so that readers can find the feature they want to learn more about. A user guide is organized by process (or use) so that readers can find out how the software applies to the way they do their "work". The above assumes that the information is the same. That may be the case but in practical terms since the focus of each is different, the information included isn't the same. For example, the FAQ would probably give a simple or direct answer to the question and reference "the CVS manual" for the complete answer or related topics. To assume that one form of documentation will serve all types of readers and their diverse needs is shortsighted. To assume that one form is always more important than the other forms is also shortsighted. To assume that someone would update one form while leaving the other alone is yet again demonstrating lack of foresight. (For the dim-witted, of course you update the CVS manual if you find something that isn't documented correctly. But no matter how complete the CVS manual is, it will not eliminate FAQ's because it isn't organized in a QA structure.) By the way, please forget that I mentioned anything about maintaining an FAQ. It's obvious that it wouldn't improve anything nor keep "old-timers" from flaming newbies. Goodbye, Craig - Original Message - From: Greg A. Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Craig Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Craig R. Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 1:13 AM Subject: why wast time to write a FAQ? [ On Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 17:55:20 (-0700), Craig Saunders wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? If Greg thinks it would be a good idea and he (and others) would be willing to forward their answers of FAQ's, I would be willing to edit and compile the FAQ list, post it regularly and keep it on a publicly accessible web site. (I would also scan the mailing list for potential FAQ's and proactively update the FAQ list. And, with a little reluctance, reconcile when old-timers have different opinions on how to answer a question.) I would much much sooner see someone, anyone, take note of questions that frequently appear in this (and any other related) forum and to (re)write the manual sections that have thus far been inadequate in providing the information sought by those asking the questions Hopefully that person would be given have commit access to at least the documentation sub-directory of the shared repository once they've provided one or two such fixes to the manual. I'd suggest that this person take the time to query (offline) people who ask FAQs to find out directly why they didn't find the answer they were looking for in the manual. That way they can find out whether or not the person even looked in the manual in the first place. IIRC it was Per Cederqvist who first decided that a FAQ was a bad form of information presentation in this context and though I originally was wary of losing the then gargantuan FAQ, I've since not missed it one little bit. There were at least several people far more worried about the disappearance of the FAQ at the time, but it's editor agreed with Per and given the massive effort that would have been required to continue to maintain the full FAQ nobody was willing to step up and take it on. Perhaps if the person editing the FAQ were also dedicated to updating the manual and keeping it relevant to user needs then I wouldn't argue against a general FAQ. However with very limited volunteer resources I'm quite certain that maintenance of an FAQ should be the lowest possible priority in the project. BTW, this is a generic issue that applies to any software package which has an active user forum such as info-cvs is. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why wast time to write a FAQ?
Greg, BTW, I did write an FAQ for my own purposes. Based on my discussions with you, it was clear that it would serve little purpose posting it to the mailing list other than to give you more reasons to bash someone. You obviously follow your own advice. You don't think about how your postings to the mailing list affect others or affect the product. I know you want to promote CVS but the way you do it holds it (and you) back. It is so important to you that your opinion is the one and only opinion that the mailing list holds. You could have said "I prefer to use the CVS manual. Therefore, I don't see the need of an FAQ. But others may think differently than I do so they may find an FAQ useful. So go ahead. Just make sure anything you add is also covererd in the CVS manual." That would have been inclusive and the community would have been that much better. And you might have learned something in the process. Oh well. Too bad. Good luck Maybe you'll learn some day. Craig - Original Message - From: Craig Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Greg A. Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Craig R. Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 10:21 AM Subject: Re: why wast time to write a FAQ? A manual does not provide the same service that an FAQ provides. The primary difference is the organization of the information. An FAQ is organized as a list of questions and answers so that readers can find the question that they are interested in. A reference manual is organized by feature or functionality so that readers can find the feature they want to learn more about. A user guide is organized by process (or use) so that readers can find out how the software applies to the way they do their "work". The above assumes that the information is the same. That may be the case but in practical terms since the focus of each is different, the information included isn't the same. For example, the FAQ would probably give a simple or direct answer to the question and reference "the CVS manual" for the complete answer or related topics. To assume that one form of documentation will serve all types of readers and their diverse needs is shortsighted. To assume that one form is always more important than the other forms is also shortsighted. To assume that someone would update one form while leaving the other alone is yet again demonstrating lack of foresight. (For the dim-witted, of course you update the CVS manual if you find something that isn't documented correctly. But no matter how complete the CVS manual is, it will not eliminate FAQ's because it isn't organized in a QA structure.) By the way, please forget that I mentioned anything about maintaining an FAQ. It's obvious that it wouldn't improve anything nor keep "old-timers" from flaming newbies. Goodbye, Craig - Original Message - From: Greg A. Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Craig Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Craig R. Saunders [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 1:13 AM Subject: why wast time to write a FAQ? [ On Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 17:55:20 (-0700), Craig Saunders wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? If Greg thinks it would be a good idea and he (and others) would be willing to forward their answers of FAQ's, I would be willing to edit and compile the FAQ list, post it regularly and keep it on a publicly accessible web site. (I would also scan the mailing list for potential FAQ's and proactively update the FAQ list. And, with a little reluctance, reconcile when old-timers have different opinions on how to answer a question.) I would much much sooner see someone, anyone, take note of questions that frequently appear in this (and any other related) forum and to (re)write the manual sections that have thus far been inadequate in providing the information sought by those asking the questions Hopefully that person would be given have commit access to at least the documentation sub-directory of the shared repository once they've provided one or two such fixes to the manual. I'd suggest that this person take the time to query (offline) people who ask FAQs to find out directly why they didn't find the answer they were looking for in the manual. That way they can find out whether or not the person even looked in the manual in the first place. IIRC it was Per Cederqvist who first decided that a FAQ was a bad form of information presentation in this context and though I originally was wary of losing the then gargantuan FAQ, I've since not missed it one little bit. There were at least several people far more worried about the disappearance of the FAQ at the time, but it's editor agreed with Per and given the massive effort that would have been required to continue to maintain the full FAQ nobody was willing to step up and take it on. Perhaps
Re: Log comments of files changed since the last update?
Sridhar Boovaraghavan writes: I am using CVS 1.10.8 on Linux (server) with a Windows NT client. Our group manages a web site and we would like to see what has changed in the repository wrt the production machine. I understand that you can do this with cvs -n update. What I really would like to see is the associated log messages that developers used when checking in these newer versions. Is this possible? If you've tagged the production stuff (which you should), you can use: cvs log -r':TAG' -Larry Jones Everybody's a slave to routine. -- Calvin
Bugs not fixed in 1.10.3 and cygwin compilation
Hi, I'm using the WinCVS versino of cvs that seems based on cvs 1.10.5. and I encountered a bug that according to http://www.cvshome.org/docs/knownbugs2.html should have been fixed in cvs 1.10.3 : "cvs diff", if it is displaying differences for a file in a subdirectory, will now include the subdirectory name (checked in 1998- 09-24). This bug doesn't appear on cvs 1.10.7.for linux. So I tried to recompile a more recent version. I tried both 1.10.8 and 1.10.7. I'm using cygwin and gnu compilation tools so I did ./configure make make install The compilation works fine but unfortunately, for each CVS command i tried i get the error message: $ cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home2/cvsroot login (Logging in to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) CVS password: cvs [login aborted]: could not open //.cvspass: No such file or directory I tried to create a .cvspass file but that doesn't worked. Is this because I didn't use MS Visual C++ to compile? (That would be a shame...) If yes, does anybody have a prebuilt cvs binary for windows without the nasty bug? If not, what's the solution ? Thanks -- Fabrice Gautier
RE: why wast time to write a FAQ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 1:13 AM I would much much sooner see someone, anyone, take note of questions that frequently appear in this (and any other related) forum and to (re)write the manual sections that have thus far been inadequate in providing the information sought by those asking the questions Well, no one has volunteered for this. Since you are included in "someone, anyone" maybe you will. Perhaps if the person editing the FAQ were also dedicated to updating the manual and keeping it relevant to user needs then I wouldn't argue against a general FAQ. However with very limited volunteer resources I'm quite certain that maintenance of an FAQ should be the lowest possible priority in the project. Someone has volunteered to edit a FAQ. Maybe you, or someone else, can implement the second half of this solution and update the manual periodically based on the contents of the FAQ. The convenience of a FAQ, even with adequate formal documentation, has been demonstrated elsewhere. The inconvenience of the lack of a FAQ, I believe, has been demonstrated here. There is no way to ensure that no one will ever write in with a question like, "Could you tell me what CVS is, and how I use it?" The fact that a FAQ will not prevent this does not mean that a FAQ would be futile. Of course, a FAQ should always be maintained knowing that it will be used to improve the documentation. Think about why the cvs chapters from Fogel ( :-) have been so helpful. First, it increases the likelihood of finding the information you need if you can see it in more than one format. Another reason is that Karl Fogel's book, Open Source Develpment With CVS, deals not only with cvs itself, but also the supporting tools, like cvs2cl. These might be considered out of place in a manual specifically for cvs. They would not be out of place in this list or in the FAQ. Updates to the manual do not reach everyone as quickly as a FAQ mailed to the list would. The manual I use as a reference was downloaded months ago. I suppose I'll get a newer copy when I get an update of cvs or when and if I run into a problem because my document is out of date. Jerry
Re: why wast time to write a FAQ?
Tobias Weingartner wrote: I'm going to agree with this wholeheartedly. *Most* of the FAQ's asked here are of the form "Why can't I, or How do I, do 'locking', etc". If those people had bothered to read the manual, they would have (with even half an IQ point) noticed that CVS advocates a copy-merge conflict resolution method, and we would not have had their questions in this forum in the first place. And people are going to continue to ask these questions. We have the choice of continuing to explain why copy-merge is a reasonable way to go, or to have some sort of canned answer. To give an example of a project where a FAQ is not really "sanctioned", have a look at OpenBSD. Their man-pages have had sigificant work done to them. Real documentation is good, although time-consuming (and I'm not volunteering at this time). Most of the time when somebody asks a FAQ (yes, OpenBSD has a FAQ, but it is quite tiny in comparison to most other OS FAQ's out there) the usual response is one of 'man question(1)', where question refers to the man-page where the needed answer is documented. I'm unfamiliar with the usual OpenBSD questions, but I would assume that some questions are asked rather often and some less often. In that case, it might make sense to have a FAQ on the order of: Q. My system A. man fnord(3) Unless the documentation is absolutely superb, and likely even then, there are going to be tricky points that people miss, or overlook, or get wrong in adapting the instructions to their system. These tricky points can be gathered together into a FAQ, which can give a quick answer and reference the manual. The FAQ in OpenBSD is used more to document errata and other things that should get fixed, and should already be fixed given an ideal world. That's one use for a FAQ. Q. My system... A. Yup, that doesn't work yet. If you want to work on it With time, people will recognize the manual as the authoratative piece of information (other that this list of course, :-) ) on CVS, and will consult it without us needing to use the cluestick every time somebody posts on this list... Um, you have more faith in human nature than I do, Toby.
Re: What is Cederqvist?
[ On Friday, September 15, 2000 at 11:49:43 (-0400), Rich Salz wrote: ] Subject: Re: What is Cederqvist? Well this old timer really thinks it very very very bad form to refer to something like this by the disembodied name of its creator What, you've never heard "according to Hoyle" or "as it says in Webster's" Lawyer's will also talk about "Black's" (law dictionary) and Chemists the "CRC", etc. "according to Hoyle" != "according to The Hoyle" "as it says in Webster's" != "as it says in The Webster's" "Black's" != "The Black's" Hoyle (as in Mr. Hoyle) did say the things one might refer to when one says "according to Hoyle" (though that's a bit poor as an example, IIRC, because it's also the title!). However "The Hoyle", whatever that is, did not say those things. I guess even "Webster's" is a bad example because that word is actually part of the title too so in colloquial communications it is a sufficiently specific contraction to be usable Yes it's a fine point, but it really really really gets on my nerves! It's even more annoying than all the times seemingly otherwise literate people use the non-word "definately" (Arrrgh!). -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] robohack!woods Planix, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Secrets of the Weird [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cvs diff with multiples files in multiples directories
-Original Message- From: Fabrice Gautier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] cvs -q diff -u -r mypatch.txt You should read the Cederqvist manual. Try the command rdiff and you probably want to forget about the -u option (unidiff, which is not supported by old patch programs). Guus
unsubscribe
Title: unsubscribe unsubscribe
Re: Wrong Author entry when using log[_accum].pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: /path/to/commit_prep.pl -r I was missing the "-r". Thanks for the pointer. You made my day. :-) Roland
Re: Log comments of files changed since the last update?
Larry Jones writes: Sridhar Boovaraghavan writes: I am using CVS 1.10.8 on Linux (server) with a Windows NT client. Our group manages a web site and we would like to see what has changed in the repository wrt the production machine. I understand that you can do this with cvs -n update. What I really would like to see is the associated log messages that developers used when checking in these newer versions. Is this possible? If you've tagged the production stuff (which you should), you can use: cvs log -r':TAG' Thanks for the help. Yes, we do. I think you mean cvs log -r 'TAG:'. This is definitely something. However this gives me the log of all the files tagged 'tested' to the current revision (including the ones that are tagged 'tested'). What I would like is one where it would give me all the files from the tag 'tested' to the current revision (_excluding_ the ones that are already tagged 'tested'). Because I already know about the versions in the production machine. What I am interested in is the newer versions. Thanks, Sridhar -- Sridhar Boovaraghavan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/sridhar_ml/
Re: why wast time to write a FAQ?
On Friday, September 15, "David H. Thornley" wrote: With time, people will recognize the manual as the authoratative piece of information (other that this list of course, :-) ) on CVS, and will consult it without us needing to use the cluestick every time somebody posts on this list... Um, you have more faith in human nature than I do, Toby. Well, the buck has to stop somewhere (as they say), if you have no faith in human nature to read a manual, why the (misplaced?) faith in them reading a FAQ? :-) --Toby.
Re: Cvs diff with multiples files in multiples directories
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guus Leeuw) wrote: -Original Message- From: Fabrice Gautier [mailto:gautier@e...] cvs -q diff -u -r mypatch.txt You should read the Cederqvist manual. Try the command rdiff and you probably want to forget about the -u option (unidiff, which is not supported by old patch programs). Well, I've read it quite a bitespecially where there was diff or rdiff mentionned. And rdiff always ask me for a module name and a revision number when I just want a diff between a file in my working directory and a the remote one it is based on. A bit of Cederqvist readings about rdiff: "Like the diff command, except it operates directly in the repository" Well, you got it... But anyway, the problem is a bug corrected in cvs 1.10.3 And reading Cederqvist didn't help to know why when you use a 1.10.5 client you still see the bug - the obvious answer I didn't figured out was that the bug is in the server, and Cderqvist doesn't give a clue about the diff being processed by the server (even on the working file) How and still another question I didn't see the answer in the Cederqvist is how I produce a patch with a new file (ie: a file present in the working copy but not the repository). May be it's another bug of the cvs server, but -N doesn't work. So If you have the page in the Cederqvist where there is an answer:- To be more general I don't think the Cederqvist handle the situation of people who have only read access to the repository (at least the free chapters). Thanks Fabrice
Sticky tags vs tags
Can someone please email me back at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and tell me Sticky tags vs tags in CVS for dummy. Should I use tags or Sticky tags??
