[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Feature request/ideas
From: |
Mark D. Baushke |
Subject: |
Re: Feature request/ideas |
Date: |
Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:08:12 -0800 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Derek Price <derek@ximbiot.com> writes:
> In the case where the information came out of the directory CVS/Tag
> file, it becomes available in vers->nonbranch, but not otherwise.
>
> In other cases, the RCS file gets parsed anyhow, but only on the
> server. Of course, since you need RCS information to resolve these
> tags anyhow, I expect you are currently only doing so on the server
> anyhow, whether you realized it or not.
>
> Regardless, I am reconsidering the decision to store numerical
> revision numbers for static tags. Technically, HEAD is really a
> static tag (it points to a particular set of revision numbers). It
> just happens to point to the most recent set on the trunk. Therefore,
> an update might retrieve a new head revision, but a commit will fail,
> as things stand previous to your patch. I've been assuming that .head
> would work similarly. Why not .prev and .next too? Even if only to
> simplify code, why not just leave the sticky tag just as the user
> specified it? It certainly fulfils the principle of least
> interference, where the user is allowed to shoot themselves in the
> foot if they like since they might find some use for a dynamic sticky
> someday that we didn't imagine.
>
> Of course, on the other side of this argument, I am fairly confident
> that there should not be much use for such a dynamic sticky and,
> therefore, storing a revision number when BRANCH.prev... is supplied,
> should follow the principle of least suprise, even if it might make
> status, log, etc. output slightly less legible.
>
> What do others think?
Does -r.prev mean anything (is it another way to say -r.base.prev)?
If so, there are some kinds of relative sticky tags that would need to
be resolved in some way if they are to be made the sticky revision.
I have no objections to a
cvs checkout -rcvs1-11-x-branch-last-merge.prev ccvs
and having the sticky revision in use be updated when the
cvs1-11-x-branch-last-merge tag is moved.
However, I am not sure I understand how 'cvs update -r.base.prev foo'
could work as anything other than a 1.48.4.7.prev as the sticky version
for a file where the baseline version for foo was 1.48.4.7.
I am also wondering how the datestamp version can generally interact
with the new .prev and .next tags...
-- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFCL1es3x41pRYZE/gRAiw+AKCeiMkGxMU6v2jxylYTs3J3oPVoiQCgkPQE
MqK3n39/wztXp4QK4Dp6gKw=
=PQk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Feature request/ideas, Larry Jones, 2005/03/02
Re: Feature request/ideas, Mark D. Baushke, 2005/03/02
Re: Feature request/ideas, Frank Hemer, 2005/03/08
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Derek Price, 2005/03/09
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Frank Hemer, 2005/03/09
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Derek Price, 2005/03/09
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Mark D. Baushke, 2005/03/09
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Derek Price, 2005/03/10
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Frank Hemer, 2005/03/10
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Derek Price, 2005/03/10
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Frank Hemer, 2005/03/10
- Re: Feature request/ideas, Derek Price, 2005/03/11
- Re: Feature request/ideas - final patch, Frank Hemer, 2005/03/17