Re: Split the functions of `cvs update'?

matt@braithwaite.net (Matthew Braithwaite) writes:
> [...]
> 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.)

Yes, but doesn't the "status" command do exactly what you want?

> 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.''

Right. Status does the former, update does the latter.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:13 2006