# [PATCH] cvsserver: Use Merged response instead of Update-existing for merged files 3 messages from 2007-03-06 to 2007-03-11. Participants: Frank Lichtenheld, Junio C Hamano, Martin Langhoff. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/7151 ## Frank Lichtenheld, 2007-03-06 09:42 Subject: [PATCH] cvsserver: Use Merged response instead of Update-existing for merged files Message-ID: <11731741443228-git-send-email-frank@lichtenheld.de> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/11731741443228-git-send-email-frank%40lichtenheld.de ``` Using Update-existing leads to the client forgetting about the "locally modified" status of the file which can lead to loss of local changes on later updates. Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld --- git-cvsserver.perl | 6 +++--- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/git-cvsserver.perl b/git-cvsserver.perl index 1bf892e..65fcc84 100755 --- a/git-cvsserver.perl +++ b/git-cvsserver.perl @@ -957,12 +957,12 @@ sub req_update { $log->info("Merged successfully"); print "M M $filename\n"; - $log->debug("Update-existing $dirpart"); + $log->debug("Merged $dirpart"); # Don't want to actually _DO_ the update if -n specified unless ( $state->{globaloptions}{-n} ) { - print "Update-existing $dirpart\n"; + print "Merged $dirpart\n"; $log->debug($state->{CVSROOT} . "/$state->{module}/$filename"); print $state->{CVSROOT} . "/$state->{module}/$filename\n"; my $kopts = kopts_from_path($filepart); @@ -978,7 +978,7 @@ sub req_update # Don't want to actually _DO_ the update if -n specified unless ( $state->{globaloptions}{-n} ) { - print "Update-existing $dirpart\n"; + print "Merged $dirpart\n"; print $state->{CVSROOT} . "/$state->{module}/$filename\n"; my $kopts = kopts_from_path($filepart); print "/$filepart/1.$meta->{revision}/+/$kopts/\n"; -- 1.5.0.2 ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2007-03-10 01:37 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cvsserver: Use Merged response instead of Update-existing for merged files Message-ID: <7v4pot281h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v4pot281h.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <11731741443228-git-send-email-frank@lichtenheld.de> ``` Frank Lichtenheld writes: > Using Update-existing leads to the client forgetting about the "locally > modified" status of the file which can lead to loss of local changes on > later updates. To me, both of these hunks look correct (the first one is clean merge, the second one is merge with conflicts). Ack? > Signed-off-by: Frank Lichtenheld > --- > git-cvsserver.perl | 6 +++--- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/git-cvsserver.perl b/git-cvsserver.perl > index 1bf892e..65fcc84 100755 > --- a/git-cvsserver.perl > +++ b/git-cvsserver.perl > @@ -957,12 +957,12 @@ sub req_update > { > $log->info("Merged successfully"); > print "M M $filename\n"; > - $log->debug("Update-existing $dirpart"); > + $log->debug("Merged $dirpart"); > > # Don't want to actually _DO_ the update if -n specified > unless ( $state->{globaloptions}{-n} ) > { > - print "Update-existing $dirpart\n"; > + print "Merged $dirpart\n"; > $log->debug($state->{CVSROOT} . "/$state->{module}/$filename"); > print $state->{CVSROOT} . "/$state->{module}/$filename\n"; > my $kopts = kopts_from_path($filepart); > @@ -978,7 +978,7 @@ sub req_update > # Don't want to actually _DO_ the update if -n specified > unless ( $state->{globaloptions}{-n} ) > { > - print "Update-existing $dirpart\n"; > + print "Merged $dirpart\n"; > print $state->{CVSROOT} . "/$state->{module}/$filename\n"; > my $kopts = kopts_from_path($filepart); > print "/$filepart/1.$meta->{revision}/+/$kopts/\n"; > -- > 1.5.0.2 ``` ## Martin Langhoff, 2007-03-11 22:21 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cvsserver: Use Merged response instead of Update-existing for merged files Message-ID: <46a038f90703111521h59079864q9c9f5d922c92dc99@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46a038f90703111521h59079864q9c9f5d922c92dc99%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7v4pot281h.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On 3/10/07, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Frank Lichtenheld writes: > > > Using Update-existing leads to the client forgetting about the "locally > > modified" status of the file which can lead to loss of local changes on > > later updates. > > To me, both of these hunks look correct (the first one is clean > merge, the second one is merge with conflicts). Ack? Ack! m ```