[oclug] complicated CVS setup

[Brenda J. Butler]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:30:33AM -0400, Dan York wrote:
> > > > > Ideally I want the user to be forced to update, recompile,
> > > > > test, then commit.  However I know I cannot force them to
> > > > > do the compile/test steps
> > ...
> > > > CVS will not let you commit without updating, so I don't see
> > > > the purpose of this.
> > > 
> > > I want to force people to test before they commit.  And what
> > > is the point of testing if you don't have the latest files
> > > in the project.
> > 
> > David was trying to say that cvs's default behaviour already
> > does what you want.  See the following paragraph from the man
> > page:
> 
> I sent the same thing to Bart when he first posted his message,
> but then I understood his larger point.  Yes, CVS will make sure
> the file is up-to-date during the commit.  When I do a commit,
> either of two things will happen:
> 
>   1. If there are no conflicts between the changes made locally
>      and the version in the repository, the changes will be
>      merged into the repository and the updated (and merged)
>      copy will be downloaded to my local working copy.

No, a cvs commit at this point will just stop, saying you have to
update your local directory.

Then the developer has to type "cvs update" and the merge will be
done in the developer's local working directory ("sandbox" in cvs
parlance).  Now the developer has a chance to test.  _Then_ the
developer must type "cvs commit" for the change to show up
in the repository.

> So it will catch it.  But Bart is concerned about the
> "automagic" part of case #1.

CVS has never done that "automagically" as far as I know.
I've been pretty familiar with cvs up to version 1.10.
Is 1.11 different?

-- 
bjb at achilles.net
Consider registering as a bone marrow donor
http://www.bloodservices.ca/english/ubmdr