Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: diff between CVS vs. manual patching

Expand Messages
  • Erik Christiansen
    ... To summarise the files new to cvs, I run a trivial bash function in the top of the working tree: cvsq () { cvs update 2 /dev/null | grep ^ ? } YMMV, Erik
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 12:31:45PM -0700, David Brown wrote:
      >
      > I've just added these files. My auto-patch scripts don't yet catch new
      > files. At some point, I will catch this.

      To summarise the files new to cvs, I run a trivial bash function in
      the top of the working tree:

      cvsq ()
      {
      cvs update 2>/dev/null | grep '^\?'
      }

      YMMV,
      Erik
    • Ingo Oeser
      Hi there, ... This will also update the working tree! (People not familiar with CVS don t always know this) So I would suggest: cvsq () { cvs -n update
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi there,

        On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 03:12:00PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:
        > To summarise the files new to cvs, I run a trivial bash function in
        > the top of the working tree:
        >
        > cvsq ()
        > {
        > cvs update 2>/dev/null | grep '^\?'
        > }

        This will also update the working tree! (People not familiar with
        CVS don't always know this)

        So I would suggest:

        cvsq ()
        {
        cvs -n update 2>/dev/null | grep '^\?'
        }


        to just SHOW the new files and not update the working tree, while
        we are at it. 'cvs update' should always be done interactive,
        because it can lead to merge errors, which need to be fixed manually.

        Regards

        Ingo Oeser
        --
        Science is what we can tell a computer. Art is everything else. --- D.E.Knuth
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.