Guy Rouillier wrote: > Martin, thanks for the reply. Have you had a chance to read the > entire thread? The matching test was suggested by Emil. To summarize, Emil originally (2008)[1] suggested only checking ~/.cvs/cvspass when ~/.cvspass fails to open. There was no response at the time, perhaps because nobody interested saw the message. Guy, two years later[2], wrote: | I do see one possible issue with the supplied modifications. At work, | we upgraded from CVS to CVSNT. So, my home directory has both | .cvspass (from the original CVS) and .cvs/cvspass (after the conversion to | CVSNT.) Sloppy housekeeping on my part, I admit, but probably not | uncommon. The supplied patch would pick up the original CVS file and | would fail. (BTW, this is true only of the git-cvsimport.perl script and recommended erroring out if both files exist to make this easier to diagnose. Emil's advice: if this is an important use case to you, maybe it would be served better by looking at both files? > This is my first patch submission. What is the process for reaching > consensus? See Documentation/SubmittingPatches, "An ideal patch flow". My take: you learn what you can from others' advice, but ultimately the idea is to just make those changes that make the patch better (where better can mean featureful or simpler and more maintainable --- this is not meant to be an excuse for overengineering). In most cases apparent conflicts are not real conflicts at all but signs of distinct design goals to be balanced or reconciled. Hope that helps, Jonathan [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/77109 [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/163979 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html