RE: "cvs commit" features

It doesn't have to be so bad if it takes care of your "ignore" settings as well. I think such an option may be good, at least for someone who did a large re-org of the files in the project. However, I agree with Greg A. Woods that the place of such options is not CVS itself but rather wrappers of

Re: "cvs commit" features

>>Of course, a user can always use "cvs add" and "cvs remove" to add or remove >>files, but these two options can help him/her make sure they didn't forget >>to do this for some of the files. > > This is one of those things that might work really well, but only > for certain development

Is CVS usable for big companies/projects (HELP!!!)

Hi All, I am trying to convince upper level management that CVS is a good choice as a version control system. Their main contra argument is that it does not scale. So, can you please give me some real world experiences on which big projects you used it. (Number of people, lines of code, distribute

Re: Tag locking change

>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Paul Sander wrote: >> I claim that "y" == "now" is a common special case. Therein lies the >> "tag the head of a branch" issue. > It is an *uncommon* special case. In every other case, the tagger >has an honest chance of knowing what they're

Re: Tag locking change

>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 10:13:42 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: Tag locking change >> >> There are lots of cases where someone demands "tag branch x as of time y". >What the heck does that have to do with tagging the head of a

Re: Tag locking change

Adam Bregenzer wrote: > Not at all. The server that holds the cvs repository also has apache > runing on it. When a commit occurs each file that is committed is > copied into a seperate directory. That directory is the DocumentRoot > for apache. That way, when a change is committed it is auto

Re: Tag locking change

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 05:40, Adam Bregenzer wrote: > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:58, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > My point was that you can do the same thing more reliably with a "cvs > > update" in a working directory that is the DocumentRoot. > But then it wouldn't be automagic, it would be whenever

Re: Tag locking change

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 04:26, Adam Bregenzer wrote: > It has nothing to do with the client, it's all > *server* side. I see no reason for it to bve tied to an update, I don't > even know how to execute a server-side script on update and wouldn't > want to anyways. > While there > are several bett

Re: Tag locking change

[ On , October 9, 2002 at 15:40:35 (-0400), Adam Bregenzer wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:58, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > > My point was that you can do the same thing more reliably with a "cvs > > update" in a working directory that is the DocumentRoot. >

Re: Tag locking change

[ On Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 10:13:42 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > There are lots of cases where someone demands "tag branch x as of time y". What the heck does that have to do with tagging the head of a branch?!?!?!? > As for the instantaneous part:

Re: Tag locking change

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 14:58, Greg A. Woods wrote: > [ On , October 9, 2002 at 14:26:15 (-0400), Adam Bregenzer wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 13:58, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > > > > Yes, sure, but that copying is done (or at least the source for the > >

Re: Tag locking change

[ On , October 9, 2002 at 14:26:15 (-0400), Adam Bregenzer wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 13:58, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > > Yes, sure, but that copying is done (or at least the source for the > > copying is created with) "cvs update", RIGHT? (i.e. it had b

Re: "cvs commit" features

Reinstein, Shlomo wrote: > Of course, a user can always use "cvs add" and "cvs remove" to add or remove > files, but these two options can help him/her make sure they didn't forget > to do this for some of the files. This is one of those things that might work really well, but only for

Re: Tag locking change

>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 22:32:18 (-0700), Mike Ayers wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: Tag locking change >> >> Greg A. Woods wrote: >> >> > If you really Really REALLY want to tag the head of a branch then just >> > check out the branch (or do a "cvs

Re: Tag locking change

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 13:58, Greg A. Woods wrote: > [ On , October 9, 2002 at 10:03:08 (-0400), Adam Bregenzer wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > > > I can think of specific examples where testing, etc. may not happen in a > > 'working copy' of the code. For example, one of the proj

Re: report on building CVS 1.11.2 on NT

Kris Thielemans writes: > > D:\kris\temp>cvs-1.11.2\Windebug\cvs -d parapet:/usr/local/cvsroot -t > checkout parapet > -> main loop with CVSROOT=parapet:/usr/local/cvsroot > -> Starting server: rsh parapet cvs server > ' from cvs serverning: unrecognized response `ok Your rsh client is doing en

Re: Tag locking change

[ On Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 11:26:08 (-0400), Larry Jones wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > Greg A. Woods writes: > > > > I think the issue is some of us don't want 'cvs rtag' to "work" when the > > intent is to tag the head of a branch, especially not with the new more > > pe

Re: Tag locking change

[ On , October 9, 2002 at 10:03:08 (-0400), Adam Bregenzer wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > I can think of specific examples where testing, etc. may not happen in a > 'working copy' of the code. For example, one of the projects I am using > cvs for is a website. I have a script in

Re: Add proxy support to cvs?

[ On Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 09:17:37 (+0200), Fabian Cenedese wrote: ] > Subject: Add proxy support to cvs? > > At the moment I'm using WinCvs because it's the only way to get over > our company proxy. It's not possible with native cvs. But I'd like to work > with normal cvs so I can also u

Re: "cvs commit" features

[ On Wednesday, October 9, 2002 at 07:41:59 (+0200), Reinstein, Shlomo wrote: ] > Subject: "cvs commit" features > > 1. An option to make "commit" ask you if you'd like to get rid of files that > exist in the repository but not in your working directory, and possibly > specify on the command-line

RE: report on building CVS 1.11.2 on NT

Ok, I tried that and it does compile+link now (using VC 6.0). Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work: D:\kris\temp>cvs-1.11.2\Windebug\cvs -d parapet:/usr/local/cvsroot -t checkout parapet -> main loop with CVSROOT=parapet:/usr/local/cvsroot -> Starting server: rsh parapet cvs server ' from c

Re: report on building CVS 1.11.2 on NT

Mike Pumford writes: > > Create a windows-NT/getpagesize.h containing: > > #define getpagesize() 4096 > > IIRC this will get things to build. Or just download the real one from: It was accidentally omitted from the source distributio

Re: Tag locking change

Greg A. Woods writes: > > I think the issue is some of us don't want 'cvs rtag' to "work" when the > intent is to tag the head of a branch, especially not with the new more > per-directory-only locking scheme Just to reemphasize, the per-directory locking scheme is not "new", it's what all versi

Re: report on building CVS 1.11.2 on NT

> Hi, > > just to let you know: > > I've successfully built CVS 1.11.2 on my NT 4.0 sp6a machine using the > cygwin tools (which includes gcc 2.95.2). Just following the Unix > installation description worked fine. This CVS version also seems to run > fine on my NT machine. > > > > I've also

Re: Tag locking change

I can think of specific examples where testing, etc. may not happen in a 'working copy' of the code. For example, one of the projects I am using cvs for is a website. I have a script in cvs that, upon checkin, copies the file over to a directory so that the 'current' cvs version of the site can

Re: Add proxy support to cvs?

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 17:17, Fabian Cenedese wrote: > Hi > > At the moment I'm using WinCvs because it's the only way to get over > our company proxy. It's not possible with native cvs. But I'd like to work > with normal cvs so I can also use it on the Linux box. The guys from > WinCvs added prox

report on building CVS 1.11.2 on NT

Hi, just to let you know: I've successfully built CVS 1.11.2 on my NT 4.0 sp6a machine using the cygwin tools (which includes gcc 2.95.2). Just following the Unix installation description worked fine. This CVS version also seems to run fine on my NT machine. I've also tried to use VC 6.0, bu

Re: Read only file

Thanks everybody :-) ...now things seem much more clearer and understandable. Regards, Anamika :-)  Jenn Vesperman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 02:03, dd hh wrote:> > Hi everyone, > Thanks a lot for the help :-) . But I am not able to understand why read only directory is require