RE: cvs rlog -rTAG1::TAG2 doesn't handle newly added files

[Matthew Herrmann]

Hi Larry,

But the problem of missing tags should only come up when a file initially
doesn't exist, and then does. The reverse cannot happen because the dead
revision should still be tagged, shouldn't it(?) if the file is removed via
cvs rm. The only exception would be a faulty tagging process where the file
wasn't tagged with others. In that case I would say it's a faulty behaviour
coming from incorrect use. The alternative of faulty behaviour from correct
use is more serious.

The branching problem you mentioned doesn't come up for the coming up into
existence problem, because every file always starts from 1.1. Said another
way, every file has a single beginning, but multiple possible ends.

In this case, my suggestion of selecting every revision up to the end tag
makes sense, doesn't it?

People's thoughts?

-- Matthew


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Jones [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2003 7:48 AM
To: Matthew Herrmann
Cc: CVS Mailing List
Subject: Re: cvs rlog -rTAG1::TAG2 doesn't handle newly added files


Matthew Herrmann writes:
>
> I upgraded to 1.11.9 but this didn't solve the problem.

Sorry, I knew there were a number of fixes to that code and I was hoping
that they would fix the problem.  Now that I think about it a bit more,
however, I don't think it's fixable.  I don't think there's any way for
CVS to intuit, in the general case, what a missing tag should mean.  For
example, if it's the end tag that is missing and there's more than one
branch past the start tag, which branch should CVS follow?

-Larry Jones

Oh, now don't YOU start on me. -- Calvin