[Top][All Lists]

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

cvs-1.11.21 and behavior on 'Conflict'

From: Charles Wilson
Subject: cvs-1.11.21 and behavior on 'Conflict'
Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 20:32:18 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20060308)

Hi - I maintain the cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com/) package of cvs and currently we distribute 1.11.17, and I have a 1.11.21 version in 'beta'. I'd like to promote 1.11.21 ... and then perhaps release a beta of 1.12.x. However, my users have reported some problems with 1.11.21:

My experience with cvs-1.11.21-1 is that it loses track of conflicts.  In
other words, in cvs-1.11.17, if I do:

$ cvs up
C foo
$ cvs up
C foo

but in cvs-1.11.21, I get:
$ cvs up
C foo
$ cvs up
M foo

I would much rather see conflicts every time I update, so I haven't
done much further testing of 1.11.21.

As far as I can tell, this new behavior was introduced here:


(1.11 branch, but later merged to 1.12). *IF* I am correct, reverting to the previous behavior is not as simple as just backing out this patch, because the patch appears correct a number of other misbehaviors AND changes the internal interpretation of T_CONFLICT (e.g we can now "trust T_CONFLICT" -- as if it wasn't trustworthy before? Which flies in the face of the testcase above, where there exists a conflict but it is not being reported the second time!)

So, I have two questions: is the behavior in the test case above intentional, and if so, what is the reasoning behind the new behavior? If a conflict is reported on first cvs update, and I *do nothing*, shouldn't cvs continue to report that conflict until it is fixed? Where am I going wrong? Another of my users wrote, in response to the above report,

I consider this change as
rather frustrating, too.  I'm often in the situation that I have to
update a CVS tree which has lots and lots of changes.  A single `cvs up'
floods the terminal window with output, so I call `cvs up' again, to see
only the relevant information (C's and M's).  However, with this change
you lose the information that an M is actually a C.  This is very

So, if this is NOT the intended behavior ... can it be corrected? <g>


reply via email to

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