[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CVS diff and unknown files.

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Re: CVS diff and unknown files.
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:22:45 -0800

On Jan 30, 2005, at 2:18 AM, address@hidden wrote:

Todd Denniston <address@hidden> writes:
Sergei Organov wrote:

Todd Denniston <address@hidden> writes:

If "cvs -n commit" runs the triggers to do your check(see my
question above), I have another question: in a remote server setup
(i.e., :pserver:, :ext:) which test was failed, the add or the
normal commit?

With my approach there is no add-to-working-copy-time triggers,
adding of a new file is normal commit (the commit time trigger
should have a way to check if the file is already in the repository
or not). So your question reduces to the following: "how client
knows what exactly failed?" and the answer is "through appropriate
error message, as usual".

Please notice that with separate add-to-working-copy-time triggers the situation at commit time is exactly the same as those triggers must be
run at commit time anyway. What's an answer to your question in this

There is a certain amount beauty in the simplicity in keeping the status
quo, which works. :)

Unfortunately, it doesn't work, sorry -- that's why I've initiated this
thread in the first place.

Huh? You know what "status quo" means, right? It means "the way things are". You seem to be arguing both ways. Would you post a message stating your point of view, completely, please? Thanks!

There is also beauty in having the options you want, and none that get
in other peoples way. For one of these options much more energy must
be expended. :)

That's why I've tried to suggest a way to implement things that is
rather simple. Still it provides an option to check if a new file will
be allowed to go into repository.

Unfortunately, if checking for compliance is an option, it will never (or at least very rarely) be taken for one of the following reasons:

- They think they are already in compliance and don't need to check.
- They think they have legitimate cause to break policy.
- They're unaware of the policy.
- They forget to check.

It's possible to have a third party check periodically, as Greg suggests. But that method isn't as effective as automatic enforcement at the moment the violation occurs.

Paul Sander       | "To do two things at once is to do neither"
address@hidden | Publilius Syrus, Roman philosopher, 100 B.C.

reply via email to

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