[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: cvs -n update vs cvs diff

From: David A Uebele
Subject: Re: cvs -n update vs cvs diff
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:13:14 -0700 (PDT)

Kaz Kylheku said something close to this:
> > Some of the people I work with have noticed
> > some discrepancies between "cvs -n update" and "cvs diff",
> > in the number of files reported changed.
> cvs -n update shows you what has changed in the repository: it tells
> you what new material you *would* get if you actually updated. In other
> words other people's work that happened since your last update.

Right, but it also morks your changes, with the "M" in
the first column, so it should also catch your changes.

> cvs diff compares the local changes in your sandbox against the
> repository versions that the working copies are based on. In other
> words your work.
> Their work, your work. Different file sets.
Is it diffing against top of tree, or version you checked out
from in your sandbox?

> > Typically cvs -n update
> > reporting a subset of files compared the list of files
> > that cvs diff reports differences.

> That suggests you are working harder than everyone else, or not
> committing often enough, resulting in large commits. :)

Larger commits, team effort for new features, hence the need
to know the list of files that might have changed, or be different.
Yes, probably better to commit more often.

Dave Uebele        address@hidden        360-876-4587 

reply via email to

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