Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-06 Thread Paul Sander
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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-05 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ 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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-03 Thread Paul Sander
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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-02 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ 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!) &

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-02 Thread Paul Sander
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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-01 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ 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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-01 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ 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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-02-01 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ 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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-01-31 Thread Mark D. Baushke
-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

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-01-31 Thread Paul Sander
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.

Re: 'cvs add' client/server semantics (was Re: Triggers)

2005-01-30 Thread Mark D. Baushke
-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