Re: updated to 1.11.6 (from 1.11.2) now have problems on windows

[Larry Jones]

Kevin Layer writes:
> 
> Eric Siegerman <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> >> Instead, perhaps it should do something like: "if the specified
> >> pathname, together with the usual other criteria (-r, -D, sticky
> >> attributes, etc.), selects more than one *revision*, complain".
> >> 
> >> The existing (I think) test cares about theoretical ambigity; my
> >> proposed one cares only about the practical problem -- the
> >> impossibility of stuffing two unrelated revisions into one
> >> sandbox file.  If an operation isn't trying to do that,
> >> forbidding it on theoretical grounds seems pointlessly annoying.
> 
> I completely agree.  I hope this is implemented for the next 1.11.x.

Don't hold your breath.  Implementing this would require such
significant changes to CVS that I'd be tempted to call it 2.x.

-Larry Jones

Just when I thought this junk was beginning to make sense. -- Calvin