Re: 10-check-am.patch

[Derek R. Price]

Akim Demaille wrote:

> | It is fine to `cvs add' a file so that `cvs diff -N' creates the
> | correct diff.  This applies generally -- if you don't have cvs write
> | access there is a script you can get that will do a phony `cvs add' by
> | manipulating CVS/Entries.
>
> Oh, I didn't know that, thanks.  So why is the server contacted when
> you cvs add?  To check that no one created one I guess, but what's the
> point?  After all when two files are added at the same time, the diff
> between the two is as well defined as the diff between two
> `generations' of the `same' file.

True, the diff could be defined, but I believe the logic is that if two people
added a file with the same name the diff is invalid since the two files don't
share a known common source.  Yes, you could use an empty file as a common
source, but when one cat.c is source for copying a file to stdout and the other
cat.c draws a member of the feline species to a line printer, the developers
aren't likely to care that CVS accepted them and checked them in this way.  In
other words, it is more likely that one of the parties will want to rename their
file than just check it in and if they want to check it in over the other file
they can always update, copy their file over the result, and check in.

Derek

--
Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden     OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
--
A handy telephone tip: Keep a small chalkboard near the phone.  That
way, when a salesman calls, you can hold the receiver up to it and run your
fingernails across it until he hangs up.