Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-08-04 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ On Sunday, August 3, 2003 at 20:38:37 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch > > If you think that this is obvious, then Heisenberg requires that > someone else would think that the obvious response would be to > diff the latest version on the

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-08-04 Thread Paul Sander
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Sunday, August 3, 2003 at 20:30:04 (-0400), Larry Jones wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch >> >> Greg A. Woods writes: >> > >> > It seems to me that it would be most logical and most

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-08-03 Thread Heather Benoit
I will be out of the office until August 11. Thank you, Heather ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-08-03 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ On Sunday, August 3, 2003 at 20:30:04 (-0400), Larry Jones wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch > > Greg A. Woods writes: > > > > It seems to me that it would be most logical and most elegant to simply > > use the combination of '-r'

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-08-03 Thread Larry Jones
Greg A. Woods writes: > > It seems to me that it would be most logical and most elegant to simply > use the combination of '-r' and '-D' when a date on a particular branch > is desired: > > cvs [r]diff -r branch-1 -D date-1 -r branch-2 -D date-2 Unfortunately, it's impossibly ambiguous u

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Paul Sander
>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[ On Thursday, July 31, 2003 at 07:47:09 (-0700), Mark D. Baushke wrote: ] >> Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch >> >> I think that the -D "timestamp" is documented as doing timestamps on the >> tr

RE: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ On Thursday, July 31, 2003 at 16:36:09 (+0200), Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 wrote: ] > Subject: RE: Strange diff behavior on branch > > And I would expect diff to use the sticky branch tag by > default. The other cvs commands need an explicit -r HEAD > to refer to the trunk.

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ On Thursday, July 31, 2003 at 07:47:09 (-0700), Mark D. Baushke wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch > > I think that the -D "timestamp" is documented as doing timestamps on the > trunk rather than a branch at present. The "right thing" to d

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Mark D. Baushke
Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark D. Baushke > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:49 PM > > To: Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 > > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: Re: Strange dif

RE: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1
> -Original Message- > From: Mark D. Baushke > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:49 PM > To: Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch > > > Okay. It appears that the 'feature' of be

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Mark D. Baushke
Hi Michael, Okay. It appears that the 'feature' of being able to mix tags and dates needs to be resolved and introduced into the trunk version of cvs as it is not yet present in the cvshome.org version of cvs. -- Mark ___ Info-cvs mailing list

RE: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1
> -Original Message- > From: Mark D. Baushke > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:14 AM > To: Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch > > > Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Mark D. Baushke
Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > From: Mark D. Baushke > > Does the command: > > > > cvs diff -r B_PROD -D 16-jul-2003 koucopy.sh > > > > work for you? > > Not really: > > $ cvs diff -r B_PROD -D 16-jul-2003 koucopy.sh > cvs diff: koucopy.sh was removed, no compa

RE: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-31 Thread Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1
> -Original Message- > From: Mark D. Baushke > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:16 PM > To: Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: Strange diff behavior on branch > > > Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&

Re: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-30 Thread Mark D. Baushke
Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not having seen a single reply I try again and ask: Does the command: cvs diff -r B_PROD -D 16-jul-2003 koucopy.sh work for you? Right now you are asking to compare the mainline version of 16-jul-2003 to the checked out copy and cvs

RE: Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-30 Thread Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1
Not having seen a single reply I try again and ask: > I have a file that was initially added on a branch. If I > do a diff based on a date I get this: > > $ cvs diff -D 16-jul-2003 koucopy.sh > cvs diff: koucopy.sh is a new entry, no comparison available > $ cvs stat koucopy.sh > ==

Strange diff behavior on branch

2003-07-24 Thread Lemke, Michael IZ/HZA-IC1
I have a file that was initially added on a branch. If I do a diff based on a date I get this: $ cvs diff -D 16-jul-2003 koucopy.sh cvs diff: koucopy.sh is a new entry, no comparison available $ cvs stat koucopy.sh === File: koucopy