Re: Question about convenient and automated committing

[Larry Jones]

Hans Schwaebli writes:
> 
> Am I misunderstanding you or are you misunderstanding me?

Both, I think.

>   There is a directory with subdirectories and files which has been
> previously checked in. Now imagine some random changes afterwards in
> this directory like:
>
> - subdirectories have been added
> - some subdirectories have been deleted, which have been previously checked in
> - some files have been modified
> - some files have been added
> - some files have been deleted, which have been previously checked in
>
>   Assume I DON'T know what has been changed in this directory, or if
> anything at all has been changed. My skript runs at night, automatically
> and unattended. It is stupid. It does not know what has been changed.
>
>   The requirement is that this nightly script commits every change in
> this directory, unattended, automatically, by force if there are any
> conflicts. Thats the requirement.

You can almost do that with CVS, but it would be a very bad idea.  What
makes you think that all the new files should be added?  Maybe they're
just scratch files, not important source code.  How do you know that the
modified files are ready to be checked in?  Maybe they're not finished
yet.  Maybe they don't even compile!  What if two people make
conflicting changes to a file -- which one is right?

Some intelligent entity needs to make those decisions, not a "stupid"
script.

-Larry Jones

I don't need to improve!  Everyone ELSE does! -- Calvin