[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: import inconsistency

From: Max Bowsher
Subject: Re: import inconsistency
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:47:55 +0100

Paul Edwards wrote:
> "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> wrote in message
> news:mailman.7968.1055764262.21513.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
>> Paul Edwards wrote:
>>> No head yet.
>> ...
>>> Strange Thing 1: The new file you added stays in the Attic.
>> This isn't strange at all.
>> The Attic reflects the head-deadness of a file. Nothing more, nothing
>> What I still don't understand, is *why do you care?*
>> If you don't use the head, why do you care about the status of files on
> My production files are in the Attic.  No-one else has this
> situation, so I expose myself to bugs that no-one else sees.

You think no one else adds files on a branch?
You do this much more than most, but I don't remember seeing any specific
bug reports from you.
Your argument about disliking less-well-travelled code paths makes no sense:
You are already using a not-well-travelled code path by using multiple
vendor branches.

>> Why do you care about the internal structure of the CVS repository?
> The same reason that person who reported the bug with
> case-insensitive files not working properly, only in the
> Attic.

Yes, CVS doesn't handle case-insensitive filesystems very well in some
cases. This isn't unique to the Attic.

>>> Strange Thing 3: People are perplexed why you don't use the
>>> Attic, while as far as you can tell, you've set everything up in
>>> the most logical manner possible.
>> Your method probably is the most logical for the situation, but you are
>> still using vendor branches in a way they were not originally intended
> I thought they were intended for exactly this purpose.

As I understand it, a vendor branch is intended to have a close coupling
with the trunk. In all cases apart from the initial import, an import is
only the first stage of the import/merge/commit process.

>> Now, there may possibly be a way to make vendor branches work better in
>> use case,
> They do work.  There's only some minor problems or illogicalness.

Exactly, I did say "work better".


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]