[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Problem with importing third-party sources and adding/committing cha

From: Mark D. Baushke
Subject: Re: Problem with importing third-party sources and adding/committing changes
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:43:06 -0800

Hash: SHA1

Greg A. Woods <address@hidden> writes:

> [ On Sunday, November 14, 2004 at 14:09:35 (-0800), Mark D. Baushke wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Problem with importing
> > third-party sources and adding/committing
> > changes
> >
> > Again, this is being addressed by the 'cvs
> > import -X' option which creates a dead version
> > 1.2 on initial import.
> Indeed, but as I've said before I don't think
> that's really going to solve the problem -- it's
> a poor hack on a bad hack.

Perhaps not, but it does mitigate many problems
observed by having the import automagically be
partially visible on the trunk which many folks
disliked and as such does address the problem at
least somewhat that you previously indicated was
not at all addressed.

> What "cvs import" really needs is the ability to
> import to the trunk and/or to any other "normal"
> CVS branch. I added such a feature to CVS a long
> time ago but my changes did not survive.

If you wish to provide them again, such a feature
has a high probability of being incorporated into
the cvs sources...

> Alternately, or additionally, my old "cvs add"
> proposal needs to be implemented.

Could you restate it please? Is it just that you
want a recursive 'cvs add' or is it something

> The real underlying benefit most users seem to
> find in "cvs import" is that it's simply easier
> to use than "cvs add" and "cvs commit" over a
> whole tree, especially when new directories are
> being created. My "cvs add" proposal fixes that
> problem in the most clean and elegant and
> complete way possible.
> Once it's easier to avoid the old magic CVS
> vendor branch then people might not be so
> reluctant to commit vendor releases to a normal
> branch and to learn to do merges of vendor
> changes to local branches in the normal way they
> would merge any changes between branches.

Patches to the top-of-tree CVS sources would be
considered useful...

        -- Mark
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)


reply via email to

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