Hi All,
Theory:
**
Base directory, in CVS directory
Base
If watches are in use, then an edit command stores the original copy of the
file in the Base directory. This allows the unedit command to operate even
if it is unable
"Win32 M$" schrieb:
> Hi All,
>
> Theory:
> **********
> Base directory, in CVS directory
> Base
>
> If watches are in use, then an edit command stores the original copy of the
> file in the Ba
file since he/she now knows where the backup is.
3. Get rid of Base (as it'll be unnecessary due to the previous).
Noel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.04.03 17:43:43
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Noel L Yap)
Subject: Base directory, in CVS directory
Hi All,
Theory:
[ On Monday, April 3, 2000 at 15:43:43 (CST), Win32 M$ wrote: ]
> Subject: Base directory, in CVS directory
>
> That is a great feature, but the problem is that it is the copy with the
> exact same name as an original. Then, if I try to grep for the files
> recursively in some di
Hi Greg,
Well, althought you seem to know the problem, I can't tell that you
understand where it comes from nor where it should be fixed. Let's see:
>That's only a problem with your search tools. If I'm not too far out of
>touch I seem to recall that the "Base" directory is within the CVS
>adm
Hi Noel,
>Short answer:
>Use "find ! -path '*/CVS/*'" (if you're using gnu find). Otherwise pipe
>the
>output of find through "grep -v '/CVS/' (you might have to backslash the
>'/').
??? Answer to what question? I asked three:
>1. Are there any other people with similiar opinion;
>2. Are ther
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.04.08 20:11:12
>But the long answer is interesting:
>>Long answer:
>>I've come to think that the Base subdirectory is a broken design.
>>1. The copy stored in Base isn't really the version that was originally
>>checked
>>out, it's the version existing at the time of "
. You'd still be able to do what you want by using a wrapper
script or function.
Noel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.19 09:01:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Base directory, in CVS directory
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Noel L Yap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.19 10:31:17
>The change you describle does change the standard behaviour of unedit,
>since the file no longer reverts to the original version. For what it's
>worth: My opinion is that unless this is accepted by most CVS users, it
>is probably your new behaviour th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 07:44:23
>Maybe we don't understand each other properly.
>
>I've mostly used CVS through WinCVS. The default WinCVS setup uses
>watches, wihich requires that you use "edit" to make the file writeable
>before you edit it (all files are read only after checkout).
Noel Yap wrote:
>
>The documentation is dead wrong. Instead of complicating the
documentation (by
>describing that "cvs unedit" will revert the file back to the copy at
the time
>of "cvs edit"), it's much easier to simplify both the documentation
and the code
>(by saying that "cvs unedit" doe
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 12:25:36
>>Noel Yap wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The documentation is dead wrong. Instead of complicating the
>>documentation (by
>>>describing that "cvs unedit" will revert the file back to the copy
at
>>the time
>>>of "cvs edit"), it's much easier to simplify both the doc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 12:25:36
>Noel Yap wrote:
>
>>
>>The documentation is dead wrong. Instead of complicating the
>documentation (by
>>describing that "cvs unedit" will revert the file back to the copy at
>the time
>>of "cvs edit"), it's much easier to simplify both the documentat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 12:52:32
>>>If it doesn't "unmodify" code, what is its purpose, then?
>>
>>Exactly what the command is, "cvs unedit". It removes the edit from
>the file
>>and notifies watchers of the action. I forget how I had it treat the
>write bit
>>(in my patch).
>>
>>Rem
Noel Yap wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 12:52:32
If it doesn't "unmodify" code, what is its purpose, then?
>>>
>>>Exactly what the command is, "cvs unedit". It removes the edit
from
>>the file
>>>and notifies watchers of the action. I forget how I had it treat
the
>>write bit
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 13:37:52
>>Yes, this behaviour is consistent with OOTB CVS (ie without "cvs
>edit"). For
>>example:
>>cvs co module
>>cd module
>>cat hello >> file # OOTB CVS has files read-write
>
>What does OOTB mean?
Out of the box.
>>cvs ci # will checkin file
>>
>>If yo
Noel Yap wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 13:37:52
>>Personally, I would like to see some sort of module "revert"
command.
>
>>Currently, I can only revert a file at a time by doing:
>>
>>rm file
>>cvs update file
>
>"cvs up -C" will revert files back to the repository copy. Thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 14:14:21
>>"cvs up" is the ideal place to do this, not "cvs unedit". Like I
>said, "cvs
>>unedit" is to facilitate communication -- nothing more, nothing less.
>
>I think perhaps you are speaking as a cvs developer here not a cvs
>user. To me "cvs unedit" has
Stephen Rasku wrote:
> I think perhaps you are speaking as a cvs developer here not a cvs
> user. To me "cvs unedit" has a closer meaning in english for
> reverting files than "cvs update". But I guess the "cvs update -C"
> isn't technically reverting files. Its updating them and throwing
> aw
Noel L Yap wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 13:37:52
> >>Yes, this behaviour is consistent with OOTB CVS (ie without "cvs
> >edit"). For
> >>example:
> >>cvs co module
> >>cd module
> >>cat hello >> file # OOTB CVS has files read-write
> >
> >What does OOTB mean?
>
> Out of the box.
>
Hi,
>If I have the
> time I will look into a way to make CVS 1.10 make the files in the
> "Base" folder write protected to prevent myself and other developers
> from inadvertently editing these files after double-clicking on the file
> in the search result list in Developer's Studio. That's the
O. Thanks! If it works as advertised it will both solve our
problem and add a few nice new features as well.
- Helge Penne
"Win32 M$" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >If I have the
> > time I will look into a way to make CVS 1.10 make the files in the
> > "Base" folder write protected to prevent myse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.21 03:02:56
>> > I don't quite see the point in having edit watches if they
>> >can be defeated like this but they can also be defeated by using
>> >chmod.
>
>I couldn't agree more. Of course you can use chmod or other trics to
>defeat the system in any case. Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.21 04:58:09
>Personally I think I want Unedit to revert the file's changes. WinCvs and
>CvsIn (well, cvs.exe in fact) gives an option to revert the changes or not
>if the file has been modified. I would rather want some patch to allow me to
>force the revert and no
Dear Noel,
> When I first made this patch, I decided for two reasons not to add "cvs
unedit"
> flags to revert or keep changes:
> 1. Flags complicate the interface to "cvs unedit".
?! What kind of argument is that? NOT having the flags complicates the
interface to cvs! Come on, all CVS commands
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.21 14:12:25
>> When I first made this patch, I decided for two reasons not to add "cvs
>unedit"
>> flags to revert or keep changes:
>> 1. Flags complicate the interface to "cvs unedit".
>
>?! What kind of argument is that? NOT having the flags complicates the
>inte
Dear Noel,
> The interface to CVS with my patch is: "cvs edit" will save a backup
using the
> standard naming conventions for backups. "cvs unedit" will not modify the
> existing file. This is an extremely simple interface.
Hm... If unedit will not modify the existing file than what is the us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.21 17:43:11
>> The interface to CVS with my patch is: "cvs edit" will save a backup
>using the
>> standard naming conventions for backups. "cvs unedit" will not modify the
>> existing file. This is an extremely simple interface.
>
>Hm... If unedit will not modif
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.24 02:10:47
>> >Hm... If unedit will not modify the existing file than what is the use of
>> >backup?
>>
>> The same purpose it serves for "cvs up" and other CVS commands -- for the
>user
>> to use at his/her discretion.
>
>Well, so far that backup copy of the file
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.07.20 14:14:21
>I think perhaps you are speaking as a cvs developer here not a cvs
>user. To me "cvs unedit" has a closer meaning in english for
>reverting files than "cvs update". But I guess the "cvs update -C"
>isn't technically reverting files. Its updating the
30 matches
Mail list logo
