[cvsnt] Re: cvs commit -b problem

[Oliver Giesen]

Tony Hoyle wrote:

> Oliver Giesen wrote:
> >  -b bugid	Only commit files related to bug (implies -B).
> >  -B bugid	Mark files with bug.
> > <.snip.>
> > 
> > ...shouldn't that be the other way round? I.e. -B implies -b ?
> > Otherwise what's the point of -b?
> 
> No, that's right..
> 
> Normally the bug ID will be set using a 'cvs edit' (combined with
> 'unedit -w' when I've used it) prior to changing the files, so commit
> -b is used to commit only those files already marked with that bug.
> 
> commit -B will commit all changed files, and mark them as belonging
> to a particular bug, which is the other way of working.

Yes, that's how I understood it. But if -b implies -B and -B means that
all changed files will be marked with the specified bug id regardless
of whether they were marked with a different bug id (or none) on edit,
and -b means "commit only files with given bug id", wouldn't that
ultimately mean that all files get committed anyway, effectively
rendering -b utterly pointless?

If it was worded the other way round, i.e. -B implies -b, then I could
understand it: -B sets the bug id and -b commits it. It would still
seem redundant to note this but it would at least make sense...

Cheers,

-- 
Oliver
----  ------------------
JID:  ogiesen at jabber.org
ICQ:  18777742	(http://wwp.icq.com/18777742)