Jeff Decker writes:
It looks like all the files you put into .cvsignore are to prevent
adding to the repository.
No. The sole purpose of .cvsignore and related features is to prevent
CVS from constantly reminding you that certain files in your working
directory are not under its control.
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 04:07:05PM -0500, Larry Jones wrote:
Jeff Decker writes:
It looks like all the files you put into .cvsignore are to prevent
adding to the repository.
No. The sole purpose of .cvsignore and related features is to prevent
CVS from constantly reminding you that certain
Jeff Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ] My question is I am getting the project from
a repository that already has files in it but once I get the file I want
cvs to ignore any future changes I make to the file.
As others have told you, cvsignore won't do that.
The reason I need to
, cvs will lose its
link to that file. This will work for commiting but if I do an update
on the project folder I belive it will try to either overwrite my
changes or ask me to merge manually (which is an annoyance).
If anyone knows of way to have cvs ignore already commited files, or has
any
Hi there, I have a small question for you all
I have some genereated source-files that I need to have in the cvs
(** Yes i know that some of you here do not like that generated stuff
gets put into the cvs-system, but due to the fact that some persons with
access to this project is not allowed
From: Christian Andersson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I have some genereated source-files that I need to have in the cvs
Why must they be in CVS?
the problem I have is that these files often gets generated
when there is nothing changed to them (it is part of some compilation
sections)
-Original Message-
From: Christian Andersson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Does it really matter why? WHY is NOT the problem...
how to make CVS work in my case is the important thing to solve...
No, how to get the generated file to the developers is the problem to solve.
CVS is just
From: Christian Andersson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
the problem I have is that these files often gets generated
when there is nothing changed to them (it is part of some compilation
sections) what happens is that I get new generated files that
has only
one difference, a remark in
From: Riechers, Matthew W
Again, why does something generated by a build need to be revision
controlled?
I wrote:
The generated files don't need to be revision controlled, but they need to
be available to people or tools who cannot run the tool that generates the
files. The most convenient
--- Frederic Brehm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The generated files don't need to be revision
controlled, but they need to
be available to people or tools who cannot run the
tool that generates the
files. The most convenient way to make the files
available is to put them
into the repository
--- Frederic Brehm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
The generated files don't need to be revision
controlled, but they need to
be available to people or tools who cannot run the
tool that generates the
files. The most convenient way to make the files
available is to put them
into
At 07:06 AM 8/22/2002 -0700, Noel Yap wrote:
Have you tried:
1. Version control the generated file.
Yes, I version control a canonical form of the generated file.
2. Build the generated file if the necessary tools are
available.
The tool does this without asking when it is run. It's a GUI,
At 07:12 AM 8/22/2002 -0700, Noel Yap wrote:
I don't understand, if Makefile.cache has to be in
synch with the other files:
1. Why are there systems that are able to commit, but
can't build Makefile.cache?
There are no such systems. I'm not sure where my text misled you into
thinking that, but
Christian Andersson writes:
the problem I have is that these files often gets generated
when there is nothing changed to them (it is part of some compilation
sections) what happens is that I get new generated files that has only
one difference, a remark in the file telling when it was
Does it really matter why? WHY is NOT the problem...
how to make CVS work in my case is the important thing to solve...
No, how to get the generated file to the developers is the problem to
solve.
CVS is just one potential means to that end.
why I cannot change the distribution is
At 04:52 PM 8/22/2002 +0200, Christian Andersson wrote:
I asked for a sollution to MY problem, not to a different problem with how
things are set up, so why not ignore why, and how and just answer my problem?
OK.
Is it possible for cvs to ignore certain rows in a file when comparing for
I want to add an ignore for all *.bck files in
$CVSROOT/CVSROOT/cvsignore, for all repositories (not just on a
per-repository or per-user way). How do I do that?
--
Suhas Chelian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I realise this has been asked/reported many times before.
When doing a cvs import, it ignores directories called core by default,
when probably the original intention was to ignore core files. In my
searches, I have noticed this problem has always existed in CVS, and has been
reported way
David Sitsky writes:
Is it the case that the CVS developers have decided not to change this
behaviour, for backward compatibility reasons?
No, it's just that no one has gotten around to making a concrete
proposal for a fix, let alone implementing one.
-Larry Jones
OK, there IS a middle
[ On Tuesday, September 25, 2001 at 16:15:04 (+1000), David Sitsky wrote: ]
Subject: CVS ignore behaviour
I have recently done some imports of some third party softwares, and a
surprising number of them have a core directory. I have also had to deal
with tags directories too. I know
20 matches
Mail list logo
