Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Tony Hoyle wrote: > keith d. zimmerman wrote: > >> It should be noted here that this behaviour does not occur if the >> command line does not contain the "." (using "cvs udate -j @<commit -j >> @commit" in the top level directory works as I would expect it to) >> I'm assuming this is because using "." explicitly selects all files? >> Perhaps I should take this up with the tortoise cvs team instead at >> this point. >> > There are subtle differences in the way "." is processed and the current > directory (one of the crappier things about the old cvs code I'm working > on right now in fact, although it's a big job). > > There isn't a lot that Tortoisecvs can do, if all they're sending is > what you typed... > interesting.... i'm not sure if it's inconsistent, or if I messed up my test, but the most recent test indicates that I was incorrect in stating that "." is handled differently than just doing it in the base directory. Even so, I'm a bit confused.... if somebody could kindly help.... cvs update -j 1.1 -j 1.2 This command will merge changes from version 1.1 to 1.2 into all files. If the file in question does not have a version 1.2, it is my understanding that nothing happens. Is this correct? cvs update -j @<commitid -j @commitid This command merges the changes for the commit id into the files. If the file was not affected by that commit id, you are telling me that the file experiences a regular update. Is this correct? If both of the above are correct, does it not seem inconsistent? thanks, -kz