Re: CVS Version CHange

[Larry Jones]

Jim.Hyslop writes:
>
> 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
> tags?

I cannot say for sure, but presumably it's exposed in CVS because it was
exposed in RCS, which was the model (as well as the basis) for CVS.

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

I wouldn't go that far, I'm just saying it should never be *used*.  :-)

It's the camel's nose into the tent.  The revision numbers are just for
internal bookkeeping; people who want to muck about with them expect
them to have some external significance and keep mucking about with
them to try to make that fantasy into reality.  It's better to disabuse
them of the notion as soon as possible rather than let them spend a
great deal of time on a fool's errand.

-Larry Jones

You're going to be pretty lonely in the nursing home. -- Calvin