RE: Replacing the head revision

[Jim.Hyslop]

Alexander von Below [mailto:address@hidden wrote:
> I continued to work not in the head (because I misunderstood branches 
> and stuff), but in VER_1-bt.
> So what I have in VER_1-bt is, de facto, the current, QA'ed, released 
> and shipping version. (A copy of it also resides somewhere else on my 
> disk.). What's in the head is pretty irrelevant to me at this point 
Yes, that sounds like a good reason to move the branch over. Actually, you
could still merge the files - CVS will detect that no changes have been made
on the trunk, and just copy the branch over.

> To me, it looks like I want to replace the head version, 
> especially as 
> cvs complains about each and every $Revision$ keyword. Of course they 
> differ, but can't vim handle that when I do a merge? If not, which 
> revision number should I keep in the file? Or throw them out 
> altogether?
You can use the -kk option when merging to suppress keyword expansion. Just
remember to clear the -kk flag after you've finished the merge. I think CVS
could handle this a little more intelligently, and ignore any differences in
keyword expansions.


-- 
Jim Hyslop 
Senior Software Designer 
Leitch Technology International Inc. (<http://www.leitch.com/>) 
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (<http://www.cuj.com/experts>)