Community
Participate
Working Groups
I have set in the /CVSROOT/modules a definition "wdkWEB-INF -l templates/ver1/WEB-INF" ( -l means "Top-level directory only -- do not recurse" ) Indeed a server shell command: "cvs -d ... checkout wdkWEB" loads in the work area top level contents only: U wdkWEB-INF/web.xml U wdkWEB-INF/ibm-web-bnd.xmi U wdkWEB-INF/web-app_2_2.dtd U wdkWEB-INF/web.xml.authenticate U wdkWEB-INF/web-app_2_3.dtd U wdkWEB-INF/weblogic.xml The eclipse "checkout in an existing project" applied to this module loads incorrectly both top level and subfolders contents.
Created attachment 29378 [details] The resource view on the checkouted module I have detected the same issue in the Eclipse Version: 3.2.0, Build id: I20051102-1600
Odd that that should happen since Eclipse just asks the server for the module. We've had other reports of problems using Checkout Into and modules (see bug 79077). The workaround is to define a root level module that does what you want instead of using checkout into on sub-modules.
The work around is ok. To reconfigurate a CVS project in a previous century manner to be able to handle contents as separate modules on the root level having no subfolder structure ... . Somehow it seems to me to go not in the correct direction by using well-thought flexible and high-level-ajustable CVS system with only-plain-language-understanding Eclipse CVS client. I am glad that it is not the case. Some features such as SSH2 with proxy support make me really happy. The thinking "...since Eclipse just asks the server for the module..." is maybe not coorect. The correct form is : "Eclipse is awaited just to ask server for the module" and, as my command line vs. Eclipse comparison test has revealed, seems exactly to be a bug point.
In retrospect, perhaps my comment didn't really convey the situation properly. What I should have said was that manipulating CVS modules from the client is not trivial. Unfortunately, the Team/CVS team does not have the manpower to address this issue in 3.2 but patches will be accepted.
Downgrading the severity since there is a workaround that the reporter has indicated is ok.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.
