Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2000, Matthew Braithwaite wrote:
> > 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 :-)
> 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
Steve Kemp wrote:
> Surely most people just do something like this to see what they've
> cvs diff | grep ^Index:
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?
In case it wasn't obvious, I use 'cvs update' to find out
which files have been modified. It gives me a nice, concise
summary of everything without my having to tweak anything.
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?
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:12 2006