RE: up-to-date check failed from a lower revision to higher revis ion

[Jim.Hyslop]

address@hidden wrote:
> Antony Paul <address@hidden> wrote:
> >     I am new to CVS. I am using the cvs command line client 
> in Linux. I have
> > one file whose status is as follows
> > cvs status: Examining .
> > ===================================================================
> > File: one.txt           Status: Locally Modified
> 
> >    Working revision:    1.4.1.3 Sat Jul 10 08:53:39 2004
> >    Repository revision: 1.4.1.3 
> /home/cvsuser/cvsroot/work/base/one.txt,v
> >    Sticky Tag:          1.4.1
> >    Sticky Date:         (none)
> >    Sticky Options:      (none)
> 
> It is unconventional to have a numeric sticky tag ...
> 
> >    Existing Tags:
> >         No Tags Exist
> 
> ... and no symbolic tags.  Anyway,

I'll go one step further: having no symbolic tags when working with branches
is plain wrong. Never use numeric revisions for branches. Always use
symbolic tags, and don't forget to apply a non-branch tag to the branch
point. Never *tell* CVS what revision number to use - let it figure out the
numbers.

Antony, getting back to your original question: Why do you want to specify
the numeric revision? What are you trying to accomplish?

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