On Feb 5, 2005, at 12:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ On Thursday, February 3, 2005 at 00:29:31 (-0800), Paul Sander
wrote: ]
Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
Many shops seem to think that it's reasonable to allow users to commit
code on
[ On Thursday, February 3, 2005 at 00:29:31 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
>
>
> Many shops seem to think that it's reasonable to allow users to commit
> code only after it has successfully compil
On Feb 2, 2005, at 12:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 03:35:48 (-0800), Paul Sander
wrote: ]
Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
Committing empty files may not be permitted by project policy.
Straw man!
(and a B.S. poli
[ On Wednesday, February 2, 2005 at 03:35:48 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
>
> Committing empty files may not be permitted by project policy.
Straw man!
(and a B.S. policy if I've ever seen one!)
&
On Feb 1, 2005, at 12:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ On Sunday, January 30, 2005 at 22:24:06 (-0800), Mark D. Baushke
wrote: ]
Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
- there are good reasons for 'cvs add' to have an advisory process
[ On Monday, January 31, 2005 at 08:05:47 (-0800), Mark D. Baushke wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
>
> If I move 'foo.c' to 'bar.c' the CVS/Entries file is going to be confused.
>
> In general, doing lots
[ On Monday, January 31, 2005 at 01:18:36 (-0800), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
>
> 'Course, Greg has claimed in the past that he already has a patch...
Actually, no, I have never made any such claim.
I've
[ On Sunday, January 30, 2005 at 22:24:06 (-0800), Mark D. Baushke wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)
>
> - there are good reasons for 'cvs add' to have an advisory process
> (which becomes an enforcement at cvs com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 30, 2005, at 10:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > At present, it is clear from both sides that the 'cvs add' behavior is
> > broken. I have probably missed some of the points, but let me try to
> > su
On Jan 30, 2005, at 10:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wait a second. The "OK for addition, but wrong for commit" is exactly
the status quo. The "cvs add" command succeeds, "cvs commit" fails
due to commitinfo.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wait a second. The "OK for addition, but wrong for commit" is exactly
> the status quo. The "cvs add" command succeeds, "cvs commit" fails
> due to commitinfo. What I'm proposing is "bad for addition, bad f
11 matches
Mail list logo