A picture paints a thousand words (David Gates of Bread)
Because of my CVS experience, AND the help from you folks, I understand
now WHY CVS does its branching. But I have to explain this to my users,
and some of them are a lot less experienced than I am with the tool. So
when they're looking at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, for the fourth time:
I am using CVS on Windows.I am running CVSNT (server) and
WinCVS (client).I have
installed cvswebclient.
Please stop!
1) This is a mail list, not a chat group. You must allow a minimum of 24
hours (48 is better) before expecting any kind of
Flossie wrote:
Yeah had already seen that... although I understand in concept, I'm
having trouble transferring that to 'real life' Maybe
this week I'm
operating in dummy mode ;-) I need more sleep
Well, I can't help with the sleep, but I'll try to give a basic explanation
of what a
On May 19, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Flossie wrote:
I'm using TortoiseCVS and did not see what command it issued (nor do
I want to learn various command-line args for controlling CVS
actions) -
I understand that feeling ;=)
I haven't used TortoiseCVS - you might also try asking this question
on a
mail
I use tkCVS since I'm on a Unix machine (HPUX). tkCVS showing that
branchY is not off branchX (because of the explanation folks here
provided) is what started all this discussion for me.
So in WinCVS, if you create a branch off a trunk, e.g., branchX,
and then create branchY off branchX BEFORE
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
This is no problem from my experience if the initial check-in was done
from a Unix (LF-) based system, but it is a problem if it was
done from
a DOS (CR/LF-) based system.
There is also a remote possibility that the binary file might _happen_ to
contain what CVS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A picture paints a thousand words (David Gates of Bread)
Only when there is something to paint. Applying a branch tag does not create
anything, so there is nothing to paint.
So, let me try giving you a few more dozen words to pass on to your users.
Eventually, we'll get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does it run on HPUX 10.20?
Why not try it and tell us? If you have a recent 5.6.x version of PERL
and the ability to do cgi scripts on your HP/UX 10.20 web server, then
CVSWeb should work for you.
fwiw: The legacy CVSWeb
Does it run on HPUX 10.20?
-chris
-Original Message-
From: Ross Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 10:08 AM
To: Fouts Christopher ()
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Branching bug ??? (was Re: Bug is tagging the head of a
branch head???)
On Thursday 20
First, thanks a lot Jim!!! Really
I still prefer this picture since it shows that branch_b is
off branch_a, even though WE all know now that they're equivalent.
+-++-++-+
| 1.1 || 1.2 || 1.3 | ...
+-++-++-+
|
Yep, this is essentially what Jim's second picture shows, and what
tkCVS shows.
-chris
-Original Message-
From: Carucci, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:33 AM
To: Fouts Christopher (); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Branching bug ???
On Thursday 20 May 2004 08:25 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of these folks are
from Missouri so they say Show me! and a picture would be the perfect
answer to this, regardless of version numbers.
It sounds like you need CVSWeb. Check out
http://www.freebsd.org/projects/cvsweb.html for
This picture that you drew for me! :)
+-++-++-+
| 1.1 || 1.2 || 1.3 | ...
+-++-++-+
|
branch_a
|
branch_b
tkCVS essentially shows this picture (also
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 11:15, Bob Bowen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much!!! Like I said, this all make perfect sense to ME
now. However, to some of my users that haven't quite grasped the concept
yet on WHY CVS does its branching the way you folks have patiently
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, thanks a lot Jim!!! Really
You're welcome. We'll get there eventually.
I still prefer this picture since it shows that branch_b is
off branch_a, even though WE all know now that they're equivalent.
Don't create an artificial distinction that will end up
We are using CVS in a Windows environment (server running under cygwin,
client is usually WinCVS). CVS is managing our source code and assorted
binaries just fine, but any Word document checked out in CVS when opened
yields the error message The document name or path is not valid. These
files
I don't deny that clearcase is capable of supporting a number of
branching models :).. What I was saying is that forcing a /0 version on
parent branches can and will cause unnecessary merges( perhaps trivial,
but it's more work still, even more work in cvs for that matter ).
Especially if you are
This is approximately the picture it draws. Of course it uses graphics not
text so it looks a lot nicer.
Foo.cpp
|
|
|+-+
|| 1.1 |
+-+
|
|
|
|
+-+
| 1.2 |
+-+
|
|
|
[ On Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 15:06:59 (-0400), Jim.Hyslop wrote: ]
Subject: RE: binary files bad idea? why?
CVS can easily handle binary files. It's just not necessarily as efficient
at handling them as it is at handling text files. That is an outcome of the
history of the utility - it was
Jim.Hyslop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
This is no problem from my experience if the initial check-in was done
from a Unix (LF-) based system, but it is a problem if it was
done from
a DOS (CR/LF-) based system.
There is also a remote possibility that the binary file
20 matches
Mail list logo