Hi again! =)
On 5/30/06, Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a heads-up; things are not as simple as I'd hoped. I've spent
several hours today trying to get old behaviour back, and so far it's
not working...
Indeed =( I've been held back by today's power blackout (I just got
back o
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 03:39:31PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:18:44AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>>
>>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
Hi all! =)
On 5/25/06, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we have a warning in place until then? Of course this bug should be
warning enough (given the severity), but not everyone uses apt-listbugs...
I'm already on the trail to see if reversing this works... If so, we
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
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 11:18:44AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>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
tag 368681 = upstream
thanks
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'm planning on digging into it further over the next couple of days;
> I'm very tempted to patch this change back out, if it is this
> simple...
Can we have a warning in place until then? Of course this bug should be
warni
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:51:44AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> I cannot reproduce what you are describing. Could you please elaborate ?
>
>Sure.
>
>First, it happens on branches when using -j (some tag of head) -j (some
>other tag of head).
>
>First, I tried in a local repo, I didn
> I cannot reproduce what you are describing. Could you please elaborate ?
Sure.
First, it happens on branches when using -j (some tag of head) -j (some
other tag of head).
First, I tried in a local repo, I didn't reproduce it, BUT I got something
weird from cvs status anyway, so here it is:
cv
tags 368681 moreinfo
stop
Hello,
I cannot reproduce what you are describing. Could you please elaborate ?
[creating a conflict manually]
% cvs up
RCS file: /home/staff/jd/test/toto/wqdwq,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
Merging differences between 1.1 and 1.2 into wqdwq
rcsmerge
Package: cvs
Version: 1:1.12.13-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
CVS now cannot detect conflicted merges ("C" state) anymore, which is bound
to cause all sort of broken commits if people doesn't notice it in time.
I didn't actually *try* to commit a file with merge confli
10 matches
Mail list logo
