[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Two question about VC.
From: |
Andre Spiegel |
Subject: |
Re: Two question about VC. |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:42:08 +0100 |
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 20:47 -0600, Luc Teirlinck wrote:
> 1. `(emacs)Branches' contains:
>
> Please note, however, that branches are only supported for RCS at
> the moment.
>
> I do not use branches myself, but is this really still up to date?
>
> Would the following replacement text be correct:
>
> Please note, however, that branches are not supported for SCCS.
I am not sure about MCVS, SVN, and Arch, but if we support branches for
all of them (which I tend to assume), then the replacement is correct.
> 2. (emacs)Local Version Control contains:
>
> But if you do this, the revision numbers in the RCS master no longer
> correspond to those of CVS. Technically, this is not a problem, but it
> can become difficult to keep track of what is in the CVS repository and
> what is not. So we suggest that you return from time to time to
> CVS-only operation, using `C-u C-x v v cvs <RET>'.
>
> `C-u C-x v v cvs <RET>'? Is that not going to try to commit to the
> repository? Is `C-x v b' meant?
No, C-u C-x v v cvs <RET> is indeed the intention, because committing
back to CVS is the only way to get the revision numbers consistent with
CVS again. Otherwise, you would stay on a local RCS branch that was
forked off some CVS revision in the past. That final sentence could be
clarified as:
So we suggest that you return from time to time to CVS-only operation,
committing your local changes back to the repository using 'C-u C-x v v
cvs RET'.