This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 08:05, Conrad Scott wrote: > "Robert Collins" <rbcollins@cygwin.com> wrote: > > CVS is only atomic on single directories. So changes > > to include/sys and include/cygwin will not be identifiable > > as a single commit anyway. > > Main point accepted but it would show up as a single action in the > cygwin-cvs mail archives. > > > Secondly, as long as you are quick about whatever you're doing, > > a -D based diff will get the full set of changes. > > True again but speed is something I'm not sure I can guarantee: I get > all paranoid at check-in time and everything seems to take forever. > > > Lastly, I don't understand the problem - you want HEAD to look > > like cygserver right? > [snip] > > That should handle file renames and deletes seamlessly. > > It's now very clear that it's me who doesn't understand the problem :-) > > Okay, so all I need to do is move the files around in the branch to the > suggested arrangement and then the patch will (by the magic of cvs) sort > it all out for me. Glorious news and easier than I was assuming it > would be. Be sure to review the results of cvsmkpatch carefully. Oh, and do a cvsmerge HEAD before the cvsmkpatch. That will give you the best results. How to tell it's done the right thing? The old files in HEAD will shwo up as patches that remove everything, and the new files will be single blocks with everything in them. Also, I like to do a cvs -z3 diff -up after patching, before checking in. Cheers, Rob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |