Re: Split the functions of `cvs update'?

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Dave Glowacki wrote:

> So both Daniel and Steve think it's silly to use a standard command to
> get the status of your repository, and that it's better to write a script
> to parse the output of a different command and to rewrite that script
> when you find yourself on a machine where you've forgotten to copy your
> script?

So, I think I'd better make myself clear since so many obviously read it that
way.

No, I don't think 'cvs -n update' is a silly command. I didn't even know
about it. I said, and I still think so, that using 'cvs update' just to get
to know what files you've changed is silly.

> Is there something blatantly *wrong* about using 'cvs update' (or 'cvs -n
> update' when you don't want your local sandbox modified) to get this
> information?

You're free to use the command however you please. I think that a command
that checks what files you've modified shouldn't itself modify the files.
That's simply my opinion. You're free to think and act otherwise.

I've learned about 'cvs -n update'. I might start using that! ;-)

-- 
      Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol