[cvsnt] Weird cvs update behaviour when using commit ids

[keith d. zimmerman]

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