[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: import inconsistency

From: Paul Edwards
Subject: Re: import inconsistency
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:18:05 GMT

"Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> wrote in message 
> >> The Attic reflects the head-deadness of a file. Nothing more, nothing
> less.
> >>
> >> 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
> it?
> >
> > 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?

No, I think no-one else has files left in the Attic after an import
and that branch is long dead, the real version is elsewhere.

> You do this much more than most, but I don't remember seeing any specific
> bug reports from you.

You don't need them from me personally.

> Your argument about disliking less-well-travelled code paths makes no sense:

It makes perfect sense.

> You are already using a not-well-travelled code path by using multiple
> vendor branches.

This is very unfortunate and has already bitten me multiple times.

Which is why I'd be much happier if people did it my way, and
indeed, I'd be happier if EVERYONE's imports went into the
Attic, so we're all in the same boat.  I won't get failures that
didn't bite you first.

> >> 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.

I thought the bug report was unique to 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
> for.
> >
> > 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.

This is an impossible coupling, as it would mean the "-b" would
never have been created on import, along with the fact that they
left every odd number (1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.5 etc) available for me to use.

BFN.  Paul.

reply via email to

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