On Thu, 25 May 2006, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >Notice the file has a broken conflict, which is not detected by cvs status. > >Nothing else detects it either, if I commit, I will commit a conflicted file > >with conflict hunks. > > It seems this is a design decision by CVS upstream - see > > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-03/msg00668.html
I did not expect CVS upstream to be actively sabotaging CVS. Thank you for warning me about it. Please consider adding a very visible warning in the NEWS.Debian file (I'd add it as a debconf note of priority high, but to each its own) about it ASAP. > for another description of the same bug. It's rather annoying that > they have changed the behaviour so blatantly from what people are used > to... So, after a non-joke merge I have a thousand files I have to manually verify for conflicts, because CVS will flag *all* of them the same way in the cvs status and cvs update commands (which are almost always the means used to verify a working copy before a commit), on top of allowing commits of conflicted crap without a warning? I didn't test a graphical front-end, but people using those expect to have those bright-red ! marks on conflicted files after a merge, I guess this won't work anymore either. Need I remind anyone that manually grepping for conflict markers is NOT something the majority of CVS users will do, because the tool was, until a few days ago, supposed to do it for them? This change of behaviour is dangerous, and dumb beyond measure. Doing such a change silently just adds to the injury, and it is not acceptable at all. I hope we can do something about it. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
