[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: cvs status question

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: cvs status question
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:53:42 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:30:20PM +0000, Robben Mario wrote:
> Yes, I know. But our project currently contains 500 source files. So, cvs
> update produces a lot of output. What I need is a status output for those
> files whose status is different from "Up-to-date".

That's exactly what "cvs [-n] update" is supposed to do!

Of course, it also prints info about files that aren't in CVS at
all (the "? foo" lines).  Fair enough; their status is "not under
CVS control", which is indeed `different from "Up-to-date"'.  If
that's where the excessive output is coming from, judicious use
of .cvsignore files can solve it (along with deleting junk from
the sandbox, of course).

You might also try making it "cvs -nq update" to suppress those
"cvs: Updating <directory>" messages.

If those don't work, and you're still getting more output than
you think you should be, please go into more detail.  "cvs -nq
update" should do what you want; if it doesn't appear to,
something's wrong.


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
The world has been attacked.  The world must respond ... [but] we must
be guided by a commitment to do what works in the long run, not by what
makes us feel better in the short run.
        - Jean Chr├ętien, Prime Minister of Canada

reply via email to

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