[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?
From: |
Jim.Hyslop |
Subject: |
RE: Checksum failure: serious problem or not? |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 10:39:11 -0500 |
Eric Siegerman [mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> Personally, I'd be in favour of CVS hiding the distinction
> between "patch" and "update". They both lead to the same end
> state, and which method CVS chooses is an implementation detail
> that's irrelevent to end users.
>
> The "P" status and the "checksum failure" message should both go
> away. (Patched and fully-refetched files should all be labelled
> "U".) I can understand wanting to distinguish the different
> cases while debugging, but that's what "#ifdef DEBUG" is for...
I certainly agree about the "checksum failure" message - it can cause
consternation among users. I'm not so sure I agree about hiding the
distinction, though. Is there any use-case in which the user would really
need to know? For example, concern over bandwidth - if the user sees 'U',
then they may choose to use the -z global option for compression, which they
may not otherwise use. Am I stretching things, maybe?
You could always submit a patch, and see if anyone notices that 'P' never
shows up any more ;=)
--
Jim Hyslop
Senior Software Designer
Leitch Technology International Inc. (<http://www.leitch.com/>)
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (<http://www.cuj.com/experts>)
RE: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?,
Jim.Hyslop <=
RE: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?, Jim.Hyslop, 2003/12/19
RE: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?, Jim.Hyslop, 2003/12/22
Re: Checksum failure: serious problem or not?, Larry Jones, 2003/12/23