[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Official sources vs. RCVS
From: |
Karl Fogel |
Subject: |
Re: Official sources vs. RCVS |
Date: |
30 Jan 2001 09:24:41 -0600 |
I haven't looked at the patch, but it seems that the most important
part will be the documentation -- guiding people as to how to use
these features. I hope it's thorough. :-)
-K
"Cameron, Steve" <Steve.Cameron@COMPAQ.com> writes:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
> [...]
> > Seems useful; if understand it correctly, it can alleviate the need
> > for branch-point tags, right?
> >
> [smc] Yes, that's what the ".origin" part does
>
> And, the ".trunk" part
> can do essentially what "cvs update -A" does, except
> it doesn't fry your "-kb" and "-kk" sticky options,
> so you can switch between the trunk and a branch
> easily, and allows you to do "cvs diffs" or other
> operations vs. the trunk with out relying on using
> numeric revision tricks that may not always work
> if your repository was made by directly importing
> RCS *,v files, or if somebody has unwittingly done
> "cvs commit -r 2.0"
>
> One questionable aspect of the patch is that it
> allows the combination ".trunk.origin", whcih will
> return the oldest revisions on the trunk. I call it
> questionable because as time passes and files
> are "cvs added" to the trunk,
> the list of files that ".trunk.origin"
> refers to will grow, unlike "branchtag.origin", if I'm
> remembering this right. I think this is because
> when files are cvs added to a branch, a dead
> revision is added first, but when adding a new
> file onto the trunk, no such dead revision is
> added first. In any case, the combination of
> ".trunk.origin" as a single tag probably isn't too
> useful anyway. It should either return what it
> does now, (a list that grows over time), or, the
> empty set, which would be fairly useless, or,
> maybe it should just be forbidden, as senseless.
> I implemented what seemed to the least senseless
> thing without forbidding it altogether.
>
>
> -- steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-cvs mailing list
> Bug-cvs@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
- RE: Official sources vs. RCVS, Cameron, Steve, 2001/01/29
- Re: Official sources vs. RCVS, Stephen Rasku, 2001/01/30
- RE: Official sources vs. RCVS, Cameron, Steve, 2001/01/30
- RE: Official sources vs. RCVS, Cameron, Steve, 2001/01/30
- RE: Official sources vs. RCVS, Cameron, Steve, 2001/01/30
- RE: Official sources vs. RCVS, J. Cone, 2001/01/31
- RE: Official sources vs. RCVS, Cameron, Steve, 2001/01/31