>We should have been happy with running "make distclean" before running
>"cvs import".
> (snip)
>find . -print | xargs rm
We use cvs in our IDE for the customers. Upon creation of a project there
are already many source files from the (embedded) OS. These files are
already precompiled as
[ On Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 15:23:16 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored
>
> I agree with the first part, but I don't believe that the second part
> was really considered by the designer and the implementation came out
> the w
>--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods:
>[ On Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 14:00:12 (-0700), Kaz Kylheku wrote: ]
>> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored
>>
>> I think that .cvsblock is silly; the tiny semantics difference between
>> that and .cvsignore is not worth
[ On Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 14:00:12 (-0700), Kaz Kylheku wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored
>
> I think that .cvsblock is silly; the tiny semantics difference between
> that and .cvsignore is not worth it. The cvs add command should ignore
> things that m
Mark D. Baushke writes:
>
> The big thing to remember that is different between cvs import and cvs add
> is that an import happens immediately while an add does not happen until
> the 'cvs commit' occurs and any time up until the 'cvs commit' you may
> remove files from the list of those that shou
On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Peschko, Edward wrote:
> >> If we don't want .exe files in the repository, the add command should defend that
> >> decision for us, even if weakly.
>
> > I happen to disagree strongly . . . There's nothing I hate more than software that
> > knows
> > more than I do.. etc. et
[ On Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 11:42:37 (-0700), Peschko, Edward wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored
>
> But that's what I don't understand. The idea behind .cvsblock (or TYPES or whatever)
> is to be able
> to *customize* the software to be able to
>> If we don't want .exe files in the repository, the add command should defend that
>> decision for us, even if weakly.
> I happen to disagree strongly . . . There's nothing I hate more than software that
> knows
> more than I do.. etc. etc. etc
But that's what I don't understand. The idea beh
[ On Thursday, June 5, 2003 at 15:45:52 (-0300), Alexandre Augusto Drummond Barroso
wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: .cvsignore file being ignored
>
> Sometimes we need to protect some users from themselves.
> Usually I don't do what I'll describe here with regular IT
> users
Peschko, Edward writes:
>
> Why the resistance to what would be a trivial feature?
Because even trivial features are expensive. They clutter up the code,
the test suite, the documentation, and the users' minds. In this case,
it encourages a bad, some would even say dangerous, habbit (expecting
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 01:02, Frederic Brehm wrote:
> At 10:08 AM 6/5/2003, Larry Jones wrote:
> >There's nothing I hate more than software that thinks it
> >knows more than I do and refuses to let me do what I want to do.
>
> The principal of least surprises should be Commandment #1 of the Softwar
Original Message-
> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:58 PM
> To: CVS-II Discussion Mailing List
> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored
>
>
> [ On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 16:34:23 (-0700), Peschko,
> Edward wrote:
At 10:08 AM 6/5/2003, Larry Jones wrote:
There's nothing I hate more than software that thinks it
knows more than I do and refuses to let me do what I want to do.
The principal of least surprises should be Commandment #1 of the Software
Engineers Ten Commandments (requirements for the other nine a
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 02:19:44PM -0700, Peschko, Edward wrote:
> [ Larry Jones wrote:]
> > Damn straight. If you want software that thinks it knows more than you
> > etc...
>
> But that goes contrary to the dictum "there's more than one way to do it".
Umm, you've got the wrong Larry :-)
No
Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consider the use of "cvs import", which obeys the .cvsignore file.
Yes, that 'cvs import' obeys the .cvsignore file is somewhat broken.
The '-I !' command-line option should be honored and should NOT process
either local .cvsignore files or the global C
Kaz Kylheku writes:
>
> This is as it should be. The TYPES file represents the project's
> policy; some random user command should not override that policy. If we
> don't want .exe files in the repository, the add command should defend
> that decision for us, even if weakly.
I happen to disagree,
[ On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 16:34:23 (-0700), Peschko, Edward wrote: ]
> Subject:
>
> It is in the sense that you are forcing people to do extra work.
> Extra work == extra possibilities for error.
You simply cannot ever stop users from causing themselves extra
problems, no matter how much y
[[ PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO RESPOND TO ME DIRECTLY WHEN YOU CC THE LIST,
and if you do not want me to do so in return then set your reply-to
header appropriately ]]
[ On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 15:48:58 (-0700), Peschko, Edward wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored
>
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Peschko, Edward wrote:
> No need for mediation. The point of .cvsblock would be to scan, and filter,
> arguments on the
You want it, you hack it!
Meta-CVS works as you want. It has a TYPES file which can specify that
files having a certain suffix ought to be added using a g
> I hope you do realise that wildcard expansion is being done by the shell.. not the
> utilty...
Of course I realize that.
> I hope you also know you can "cvs rm" all the files you had not intended...
Of course I realize that.
>> if I *wanted* to pick up a file like this, there should be an op
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:11:07PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [[ PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO RESPOND TO ME DIRECTLY WHEN YOU CC THE LIST,
>and if you do not want me to do so in return then set your reply-to
>header appropriately ]]
It is not possible for me to set my 'reply-to header' appropri
[ On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 13:41:14 (-0700), Peschko, Edward wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored...
>
> But that's no good - its error prone,
Ah, NO, it is definitely _not_ error prone!
> and it puts the onus on the user to get it right. If I'
[ On Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 13:04:30 (-0700), Peschko, Edward wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: .cvsignore file being ignored...
>
> I disagree. If I say 'cvs add * in a directory, I surely don't want to
> pick up extra files, like vim's .swp, and ~ files, or maybe .bak
> f
Peschko, Edward writes [still using long lines]:
>
> But that's no good - its error prone, and it puts the onus on the user to get it
> right.
Damn straight. If you want software that thinks it knows more than you
do, Microsoft will be glad to oblige you. The philosophy here is that
the user is
>> But that's no good - its error prone, and it puts the onus on the user to get it
>> right.
> Damn straight. If you want software that thinks it knows more than you
> etc...
But that goes contrary to the dictum "there's more than one way to do it". You didn't
comment
on my .cvsblock propo
>
> I disagree. If I say 'cvs add * in a directory, I surely don't want to pick up extra
> files, like vim's .swp and ~ files.,
> Then don't say that. Or follow it with a "cvs rm *.swp ..." to "unadd"
> the stuff you didn't really want to add in the first place. But
> don't complain when CVS doe
Peschko, Edward writes [in long lines]:
>
> I disagree. If I say 'cvs add * in a directory, I surely don't want to pick up extra
> files, like vim's .swp, and ~ files,
> or maybe .bak files, or whatever.
Then don't say that. Or follow it with a "cvs rm *.swp ..." to "unadd"
the stuff that you d
> No.
> A user should be able to add any file to the repository that they wish
> The .cvsignore file is to reduce the clutter on an update or diff
I disagree. If I say 'cvs add * in a directory, I surely don't want to pick up extra
files, like vim's .swp, and ~ files,
or maybe .bak files, or wha
Peschko, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hm.
>
> I have a .cvsignore file in each of my directories with the following entry:
>
> *~
>
> and yet when I say:
>
> cvs add file~
>
> it happily accepts the file, puts it in for committing. when I cvs
> commit, it commits the file.
>
> umm...
29 matches
Mail list logo
