[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Jun 2008 07:39:29 -0700 |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> >> Which is indeed all the info you'll ever get from all other VCSes.
> >> Their `vc-dir' command will never tell you "needs-update" either.
>
> > But the state those backends show in vc-dir is accurate, and you can
> > just check things in without a problem.
>
> Not necessarily. With Bazaar, if you do a "checkout"
> (i.e. a bound-branch: your local branch is bound to some other branch;
> commits go to both places), then bzr commit may fail if you haven't
> first updated your local branch to the latest revision on the
> upstream branch.
>
> Of course, with CVS the problem is also present if you use cvs-status:
> the returned state may be "accurate" when you receive it, but it can
> change before you do the commit.
Well, that's always the case for any shared system, isn't it? So
there's no real reason to mix that in this discussion.
> > If things go the way you are proposing, how do you get the up to date
> > state so you can actually check in your changes? Another command?
>
> Yes, a command we absolutely need anyway: vc-pull.
We do need the vc-pull command, but we don't need it for CVS _by default_.
Sure, it could be used for CVS, but that is not the normal workflow for
CVS, so it would just confuse our users. And while the implementation
of vc-cvs-stay-local is trivial, vc-pull is not.
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, (continued)
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/03
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/03
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/06
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Dan Nicolaescu, 2008/06/04
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Nick Roberts, 2008/06/05
- Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Stefan Monnier, 2008/06/05
Re: vc-status vs pcl-cvs, Sam Steingold, 2008/06/04