Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> What about my suggestion of runing CVS a second time if we get
> extraneous files the first go-round? I'm guessing there'd have to be a
> sleep in there as well...
The trouble with running "cvs update" a second time is that it will be
just as liable to fail as the first run. So I am following your
suggestion, but with this modification: after a sleep we will run "cvs
status" which will not have the same issues, because it doesn't create
or delete anything, and will show us any extraneous files/directories
that might be present.
cheers
andrew