Re: Ignore local changes?

[Eric Siegerman]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 02:01:30PM -0500, Larry Jones wrote:
> Eric Siegerman writes:
> > 
> > CVS should probably print a warning in this case, but it doesn't.
> 
> "This case" is updating a file with a sticky tag or date, which seems
> like a good idea to me, too.  Anyone disagree?

Sticky *revision* tag or date (which is what I'm sure you meant :-).

Issue: should CVS always complain, or only when it would actually
have done something?  The two options are:
 a. print a warning if a sticky revision tag or date is
    encountered during "cvs update"

 b. Like (a), but only if the revision named by that tag/date is
    different from the one CVS would otherwise have updated to

Personally, I'd much prefer (b).  If the sticky tag/date names
the revision I'd have gotten anyway, then the end state I was
requesting has been achieved; my sandbox is indeed up to date.
It's only if the tag/date has prevented me from synchronizing
completely that I need to make a decision.

--

|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
A distributed system is one on which I cannot get any work done,
because a machine I have never heard of has crashed.
        - Leslie Lamport