[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Why does 'cvs admin -l<branchname>' complain that my branch is absen
RE: Why does 'cvs admin -l<branchname>' complain that my branch is absent?
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:16:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Teala Spitzbarth
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:32 AM
To: 'Whitlock, Ginger'; address@hidden
Subject: RE: Why does 'cvs admin -l<branchname>'
complain that my branch is absent?
I know from other email that Larry has sent me that
the way CVS handles branches can be problematic in
some commands - i.e. CVS doesn't actually create a
branched version of each file when the branch is
created (that is why you see the magic zero in that
fake branch revision number for files that haven't
been modified yet). This behavior can sometimes cause
conflict with how RCS works under the covers. For
example, the log command will have erroneous output
for files on branches when they are first modified,
due to the fact that the "previous" (magic
zero)revision on the branch doesn't really exist yet
at the RCS level, causing the log code to fall into an
error condition. (Larry may have fixed this is the
development version by now...)
I believe the admin -l command is fundamentally an RCS
level command - so I bet it can't lock unmodified
versions on a branch, because at the RCS level, those
versions of the file don't really "exist".....
There are versions of commit-info scripts kicking
around that allow you to lock branches - you may want
to consider one of those. See for example:
(Note: I'm pretty sure this script got munged somehow
and the exit 0 should be outside of the for loop,
otherwise recursive commits might slip through onto a
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!