Re: cvs edit/commit problem

[Richard J. Duncan]

> > >Why does cvs unedit the file that was modified and not 
> > unedit the file
> > >that was not modified.
> 
> Take this situation: I see problems in file1 and file2, so I "cvs edit file1
> file2".
> I fix file1 and "cvs commit".
> Why should cvs unedit file2? I still want to make changes to file2. When I
> did the commit, I wasn't intending to commit file2, only file1.
> The basic principle is that cvs shouldn't be doing too much guessing about
> what I mean. It has to "guess" that I was committing the file I changed. It
> doesn't necessarily follow that I also meant to unedit any files I had put
> an edit on. If I wanted to that, I'd use "unedit" instead of "commit".

I would argue that in your situation you should type 

  cvs commit file1

instead of 

  cvs commit 

if all you want to do is commit the one file. When you run cvs commit
with no arguments it runs on all files in the current directory, so
shouldn't it do something to all files in the directory?

It seems arbitrary that it operates on only modified files, do people
really like this. So far I have seen a lot of "it is right because it
is the way it is," not "it is right because it seems the proper
interface."

-Rick