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.
Gerhard Fiedler <lists at connectionbrazil.com> writes: > > Johan Holmberg wrote: > > > I wonder if it is possible to run "cvs update" to fetch new changes > > from the server, but without fetching changes for files that > > are also changed locally? > > > > I would like to "hold" updates for such files for consideration later, > > even if a merge would be successful. > > AFAIK there is no built-in command line option to do that. > [...] > > OTOH this doesn't seem to make much sense. If there are changes in files > you have modified and changes in files you have not modified, chances are > the changes are related and it doesn't help you a lot to get only the > changes in files you haven't modified. This may easily break the build. > > If you don't want to update yet, just don't. [...] I should perhaps have explained my situation in more detail. My scenario (in this case) is to use "cvs update" in a "batch setting" to update all files in a whole directory tree. The files are *self contained*, so the usual dependency problems don't arise. When there is un-committed local changes, it is for a good reason. The most important thing (in batch mode) is to *avoid* overwriting these changes, not even with a successful merge. I want those changes to be managed interactively later. I admit that this usage is a bit "unusual", but it makes sense to me. I have thought about switching to some "mirroring software". It would probably fit nicely with the "batch mode". But then I would loose the nice things with CVS when working in "interactive mode": using diff, accessing file history, commiting changes, etc. /Johan Holmberg