From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't propagate SKIPPED warning to future commits. Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:21:30 -0800 Message-ID: <7vpslutz2t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <87r76avfhz.wl%cworth@cworth.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 11 03:21:37 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7kOF-0006Sr-7q for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:21:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932085AbWBKCVd (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:21:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932086AbWBKCVc (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:21:32 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31]:52669 "EHLO fed1rmmtao08.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932085AbWBKCVc (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:21:32 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060211021852.STUH26964.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:18:52 -0500 To: Carl Worth In-Reply-To: <87r76avfhz.wl%cworth@cworth.org> (Carl Worth's message of "Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:41:28 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Carl Worth writes: > Here's a simple bug fix for the (currently undocumented) -S flag to > git-cvsimport. > > The -S flag allows an import to proceed in the face of a missing ,v > file in the CVS repository. It marks this by adding a SKIPPED warning > in the relevant commit. > > Without this patch, the SKIPPED warning propagates to all future > commits, (and accumulates with future SKIPPED warnings). I might be missing something fundamental, but isn't prapagating the warning a good thing? If an earlier commit is suspected to lack some path that needs to be there (I think that is what "missing ,v file" means), wouldn't later commits built on top of that one be by definition missing that path?