--- Nate Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you running a patched version on both the
client
and the server?
The patched version of cvs is running on a linux
server.
The client is running WinCvs on a Win2000
workstation.
I think this is the root of your problem. The
client
--- Nate Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel,
Do I need to edit the patch file at all before I
initially apply it to our
system? Thanks!
I've had experiences on a Solaris box in which patch
didn't handle subdirectories (perhaps I wasn't using
it properly). Instead of investigating
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:09:28AM -0700, Noel Yap wrote:
I've had experiences on a Solaris box in which patch
didn't handle subdirectories (perhaps I wasn't using
it properly).
Solaris patch is severly broken, IME.
Instead of investigating further, I
chopped up the patch file into
--- Eric Siegerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:09:28AM -0700, Noel Yap
wrote:
I've had experiences on a Solaris box in which
patch
didn't handle subdirectories (perhaps I wasn't
using
it properly).
Solaris patch is severly broken, IME.
Instead of
--- Nate Swenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel,
I downloaded the editCheck-25feb2002_diff.htm file
from this web site and
printed it out. I understand how to read the output
from the diff command,
but what am I supposed to do with this now?
Assuming you're starting with the version
All I can say is, that's a very good question.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Greg A. Woods
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: CVS-II Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: lock-modify-unlock model
[ On Monday, March 25, 2002 at 10:30:55 (-0500), John Lippiello wrote: ]
Subject: RE: lock-modify-unlock model and cvs admin -l
[ On Friday, March 22, 2002 at 15:51:42 (-0500), Greg A. Woods wrote: ]
Why would you consider using a tool that is explicitly designed to force
the copy-edit
"Greg A. Woods" wrote:
[ On Monday, March 25, 2002 at 10:30:55 (-0500),
John Lippiello wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: lock-modify-unlock model and cvs admin -l
>
> [ On Friday, March 22, 2002 at 15:51:42 (-0500), Greg A. Woods
wrote: ]
> >
> > Why would you consider
Why would you consider using a tool ... [for]
the copy-edit-merge model of development if you're not willing to
embrace that model?
All I can say is, that's a very good question.
analysing whatever
fears you might have about the copy-edit-merge model,
I'm chuckling because in (my
John Lippiello writes:
My company uses the lock-modify-unlock model of software
development. We are considering moving to CVS. I see in
the Cederqvist document in Sec. A.6.1 that there is a way
to lock using cvs admin -l. At the start of section
A.6 is a comment that some of the
John == John Lippiello [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John
John Hi
John My company uses the lock-modify-unlock model of software
John development.
OK.
John We are considering moving to CVS.
OK. That rather implies that you are not going to do the first sentence
any more.
John I see in the
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:46:35AM -0500, John Lippiello wrote:
My company uses the lock-modify-unlock model of software
development. We are considering moving to CVS.
CVS is *far* from ideal for this model.
cvs admin -l is a kludgy backdoor way of accessing the
lower-layer RCS locking,
12 matches
Mail list logo
