Re: Split the functions of `cvs update'?

On 27 Oct 2000, Matthew Braithwaite wrote:

> `cvs update' has a dual function: it reports the status of your
> working copy in a compact format, and it merges changes from the
> repository. If you want the former function, you may forget that
> you are getting the latter as well.

Hm, I've never really concidered the first case being a separate function.
I've more seen it as "info we can just as well give you when we do the update
operation".

> One frequently does a `cvs update' in order to answer the question,
> ``now, what files did I modify, again?''

I'd say that is a rather silly use of update. IMHO :-)

> Accordingly I think it might make sense to re-package the handy status
> function of `cvs update' in a separate command. (Unfortunately `cvs
> status' is already taken.) The idea is to avoid conflating ``tell me the
> status of my working copy'' with ``update my working copy with new stuff
> from the repository.''

Well, if you take the mentioned 'cvs status' command, it already today tells
me the status of my working copy. It shows what files I've modified and which
files that have been modified in the repository since my last update.

In what way would this suggested other command differ?

Personally, I usually have a little alias or script to do 'cvs status | grep
Status: | grep Locally Modified' or similar to get a brief list of files I've
modified...

Or am I missing something?

-- 
      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