> > No, he seems to want to have cvs running on his local machine, at least
> > that is what I see Thomas saying.
>
> Okay...put yourself in his shoes...no access to postgresql.org...
>
> Now, he can do a cvsup of the sources, which, if he makes any
> changes to his sources, overwrites those changes...or, he can cvsup the
> cvs repository itself, and manipulate that as if he were connected
> directly to postgresql.org...
>
> Basically, he can do a "cvs update pgsql" to bring in any new
> changes, *plus* have CVS auto-merge his changes into it...
>
> Once way, he submits a whole bunch of little patches, the other he
> can work until he ready, on his home machine, and submit one large
> patch...both ways he succeeds in staying in sync with any changes that we
> make, or anyone else does...one is less convienent to us all then the
> other though :)
OK, now my head hurts.
So he basically keeps his copy of CVSROOT current with our tree, and has
a personal copy of that that he uses to make changes. And he can run
'cvs update' and that will change his personal tree to stay in sync with
our changes? Yikes.
If you are over-writing the CVSROOT with remote changes via cvsup, is
cvs smart enough to realize how to keep his sources in sync?
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
