[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: CVS Version CHange

From: Jim.Hyslop
Subject: RE: CVS Version CHange
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:47:46 -0500

address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden wrote:
[specifying revision numbers on checkin - is it reasonable?]

> No, it is not.  Revision numbers are for CVS's internal use 
> only;
If that's the case, then why was the revision number ever exposed in the
first place? Is it a legacy of RCS or SCCS - do they not support symbolic

So are you saying that "cvs ci -r <revision number>" is a mistake and should
not have been allowed?

> people
> should ignore them and resist the temptation to muck with 
> them.  If you
> want to mark a known starting point (or anything else), use a tag.
I agree that tags should be the _preferred_ way to do this, but I really do
not see why you are so vehemently opposed to manually forcing revision
numbers under special circumstances. What problems will this introduce?
Again, under special circumstances, not under day-to-day use. I admit, I
cannot think of any real-life reason I'd want to do it, but that doesn't
mean I should be prohibited from using the revision numbers if I come up
with a reason to do so.

The major drawback with tags is that they can be moved or deleted, without
any history of the changes. You cannot change a revision number, unless you
want to go through a lot of work (or unless you feel like manually editing
the RCS file - definitely not a recommended practise!!).

Jim Hyslop
Senior Software Designer
Leitch Technology International Inc. (
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (

reply via email to

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