bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: import inconsistency


From: Derek Robert Price
Subject: Re: import inconsistency
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:00:23 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

Paul Edwards wrote:

I've had a potential brainwave.  If an import, which is a actually
just another branch except you don't need to add things one at a
time, creates an active head, why shouldn't adding on a branch
create an active head too?

Both places I have worked where we developed on branches,
both had scripts that would rename the "Tag" in order to get
files added to the head, then put on the branch.

Should CVS simply be changed so that adding on branches is
treated the same way as imports, ie it creates BOTH the head
and the branch, both active?  This would have the effect of
fixing that inconsistency and moving it out of the Attic at the
same time.

_NO_! Adding to a branch does not create an active head. A branch is separate from the head by definition. Vendor branches are simply a special sort of branch that mean to act as a "base", for lack of a better word, of the head, unless a file has already been committed to the head by a user. Thus the problem when a revision exists on the head, dead or not, requiring a merge.

The case when there have been commits to the head before any import, when the import then conflicts, was never considered from the start and will need some planning and reworking of the code.

Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
And what if you track down these men and kill them?  What if you murdered all
of us?  From every corner of Europe hundreds, thousands, would rise to take our
places.

                - Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo, _Casablanca_







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]