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?

  No, I don't think its silly.

  What I think is silly is having to perform an update to
 see what you've changed.

  It should be possible to see a list of the files you've got
 which are different than the corresponding files in the repository,
 _without_ having to merge - and potentially get conflicts from.
 
> 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.

  It does, but it _could_ give you merge conflicts, and break a
 build, for example.
 
> 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?

  Theres nothing wrong with it, if you accept the risk of
 modifications - although this won't be a problem with the "-n"
 flag.

Steve

---