[Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?

[Miles Bader]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
>     > BTW, is it alright to use `tag' to create _occasional_ tagged
>     > versions in branch, e.g., base-0 = tag, patch-1 = patch, patch-2
>     > = patch, patch-3 = tag, ...?  This seems convenient in some
>     > cases, but I vaguely recall a warning against it somewhere.
>
> However, I wonder if in 9/10 of your occaisional cases, you wouldn't
> rather `get' the thing you would tag, `sync-tree' with the version you
> want to commit to, then commit.

My reason for wanting to do this is this:  I'd like to keep around
branches for my own use (e.g., my `x' branch), whose contents are
eventually merged back into my main branch, and basically the branch is
then defunct.  However later, I'd like to do the same thing again, and I
don't particularly want to change the version number (which would
probably be the `kosher' way to do this), e.g. reuse the same
branch/version.  In this case, it's likely that the delta between the
last patch of the previously defunct `x' branch and the new hip `x'
branch is pretty large; since really I just want the new patch level to
be a straight copy of the main branch, a tag/link is the obvious thing
to do.

BTW, what's the problem with doing replay or whatever in this situation?
It seems like a replaying a continuation changeset in an existing
project tree should just delete the entire project tree contents, and
then checkout new sources; does it not do this?  I guess one oddity
would be that such a changeset would not be (easily) reversable, but I'd
think that's not usually a problem.

-Miles
-- 
We have met the enemy... and he is us.  -- Pogo