The purpose of "cvs edit" is to communicate to others that you intend to modify
and commit a file. Therefore, unless you really do intend to modify and commit
all files, "cvs edit *" is the wrong thing to do. Don't do that.
Instead, "cvs edit" each individual file as you figure out that you do
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Richard J. Duncan wrote:
Is this a know bug in CVS? Is there a known workaround? Maybe some
No it is not a bug. If CVS did this it would be a bad idea for the same
reason that the directive to automatically unedit the file you suggested
would be a bad idea. The known
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.10.05 13:25:57
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Richard J. Duncan wrote:
Is this a know bug in CVS? Is there a known workaround? Maybe some
No it is not a bug. If CVS did this it would be a bad idea for the same
reason that the directive to automatically unedit the file you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.10.05 14:28:01
The purpose of "cvs edit" is to communicate to others that you
intend to modify and commit a file. Therefore, unless you really do
intend to modify and commit all files, "cvs edit *" is the wrong
thing to do. Don't do that.
Ok, then take this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.10.05 14:28:01
Ok, then take this situation. I see a problem in this file. I want to
edit it so I type "cvs edit file1" Then with further
investigation I
see the problem is really in file2, so I do "cvs edit file2" and
then make my changes in file2. Then I am
Why does cvs unedit the file that was modified and not
unedit the file
that was not modified.
Take this situation: I see problems in file1 and file2, so I "cvs edit file1
file2".
I fix file1 and "cvs commit".
Why should cvs unedit file2? I still want to make changes to file2. When I
"Richard J. Duncan" wrote:
It seems arbitrary that it operates on only modified files, do people
really like this. So far I have seen a lot of "it is right because it
is the way it is," not "it is right because it seems the proper
interface."
I might argue the side for the existing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 2000.10.05 16:42:02
I would argue that in your situation you should type
cvs commit file1
instead of
cvs commit
What if there were tons of files spread throughout the directory hierarchy?
It seems arbitrary that it operates on only modified files, do people
