RE: feature question

[Dave Cridland]

Ah, that's what it does... FWIW, I'd appreciate seeing this in the main CVS distribution, since otherwise I always simulate all this with my awful shell scripts.

For those who care, it's not because reserved locks are useful in code, it's because they're useful when the repository is holding the Linux config files, which are somewhat more difficult to test merges with, so I usually apply KISS rules to it. Code, I feel, makes no difference whether you allow concurrent edits or not - the testing / reintegration problem stays the same.

Noel, if there's anything I can do to help get these patches into the main distribution, then feel free to drop me a mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: Noel L Yap [mailto:address@hidden]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 4:37 PM
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: RE: feature question

For the major enhancements (reserved locks and multiple edits per user), I've
fished them out into separate (and merged) patches.  These need to be tested
(I've done very minor testing -- sometimes just to check if they compile) and
documented.

Specifically, the features that need testing are:
1. "cvs edit -c" actually aborts the edit if other edits exist.
2. "cvs edit -f" will force the edit in the event that "edit -c" is in ~/.cvsrc.
3. "cvs ci -c" actually aborts the edit if a valid edit doesn't exist.
4. "cvs editors" reports edits properly.
5. "cvs unedit" unedits edits properly.

All of the above must work for different combinations of feature-support between
client and server.  For example:
1. Non-patched client against patched server.
2. Patched client against non-patched server.
3. Patched client against patched server.

As Derek has pointed out, sanity.sh can cover the first five, but it can't test
the different combinations of client/server.

I think I've covered all the cases, but I may still be missing something.

Noel

address@hidden on 2001.03.25 17:44:09

To:   address@hidden
cc:   address@hidden
Subject:  RE: feature question

I'm using the distribution from http://www.cvsnt.com/. And it's been working
just fine. The accompanying readme file does not specify that a patch has
been applied, so I just assumed that it is now a standard option.

Noel, what exactly are you still left with there? I do not have much free
time, but a little that I have I would be willing to look at whatever is
left outstanding. I need to see how much is left before I can tell you if I
can take it on or not.

have a day,
     Sasa

-----Original Message-----
From: Noel L Yap [mailto:address@hidden]
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2001 1:50 AM
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: feature question

Are you sure you're not using a Windows version that's been patched?

Noel

address@hidden on 2001.03.23 01:39:59

To:   address@hidden
cc:   (bcc: Noel L Yap)
Subject:  feature question

Clear DayWhy did not 'edit -c' make it to the cvs 1.11 and yet it is on the
windows version of cvs 1.10.8?

have a day,
    Sasa
==========================================
Sasa Brcerevic
Technology Partners Group

Phone:   +61 1800 155 577
Direct:  +61 (02) 4925 1535
Mobile:  +61 (0416) 297 442
Email:   address@hidden
WWW:     www.technologypartnersgroup.com
==========================================

_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs

This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.

_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs