[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Official sources vs. RCVS

From: Derek R. Price
Subject: Re: Official sources vs. RCVS
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:29:24 -0500

"Derek R. Price" wrote:

> "Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> > Derek Price wrote:
> > > "Cameron, Steve" wrote:
> >         [...]
> > > >         Here's why: the same revision marked by the static tag might be
> > > >         present on multiple branches, due to CVS's optimization of not
> > >
> > > No, no, no.  I totally agree.  I meant that it would be easy for a novice
> > > user
> > > to _expect_ that behavior,    [...]
> > >
> >         Oh.  But changing that would mean doing the wrong thing in the
> >         (pathological) case of a tag which is in some instances a branch
> >         tag and some instances a non-branch tag.  Maybe that's ok, but
> Hmm.  Good point.  Yuck.

Hey.  Wait a second.  CVS is outputting the, "cvs update: foo is no longer in 
repository", warning on a case by case basis.  It should at least give a 
warning when .origin is applied to a sticky tag even if it returns an empty
revision.  At least the user will have some idea that pathological tags are
lurking about.


Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden     OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
Boy:  A noise with dirt on it

reply via email to

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