[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cvs rtag -r BRANCH -D date
From: |
Derek R. Price |
Subject: |
Re: cvs rtag -r BRANCH -D date |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:13:19 -0400 |
address@hidden wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > Simply allowing both -r and -D is intuitive, but it does cause
> > problems for diff. I'm throughly undecided about what the best
> > approach is.
>
> One option to specify one revision (-r<branch>:<date>) seems cleaner
> than two (-r<branch> -D<date>) in all cases, especially where more
> than one option may be specified, as in cvs log and cvs diff. The
> choice of ':' was unfortunate, though, because it conflicts with the
> RCS-style revision range specification, as in 'cvs log
> -r<rev1>:<rev2>'. The '@' character, as in <branch>@<date>, would
> have been a nice choice. Come to think of it, since '@' isn't legal
> in revision numbers, tags, or dates (I think), maybe support for this
> syntax could be added (everywhere: for diff -r, update -r, update -j,
> get -r, ...) without breaking anything.
>
> Anybody see problems with this?
Maybe. I'm not sure about the datespec rules either, but if we go with
'@', I'm going to say address@hidden is probably the more generally
intuitive way to select a point (date) on a branch due to the meaning
already assigned to '@' in other (non-cvs) contexts.
Derek
--
Derek Price CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden CollabNet ( http://collab.net )
--
This is the fourth?
- Thomas Jefferson's last words
(he died on the 4th of July)