info-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it sh


From: Mike Castle
Subject: Re: FW: Commit inconsistency: Up-to-date check did not fail though it should have !
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:30:07 -0800

In article <address@hidden>,
Eric Siegerman  <address@hidden> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 03:36:58PM +0200, Reinstein, Shlomo wrote:
>> I just wonder how come this does not cause problems in
>> the development of large projects that are kept in CVS.
>
>So do I!

Probably because, in most cases, it simply doesn't matter, and the speed
improvement you get it worth the minor inconvenience.

As I posted before, at least one other CM system, namely Perforce, acts in
a similar manner.  And there are several large systems under P4 control,
including Open Source ones (Perl, for instance).

I imagine that the protocol will work either way, so if it bothers enough
people, make it a run time configuration option.

mrc
-- 
     Mike Castle      address@hidden      www.netcom.com/~dalgoda/
    We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.  -- Watchmen
fatal ("You are in a maze of twisty compiler features, all different"); -- gcc




reply via email to

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