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
I'm kind of leaning toward having it do the right thing in that
case:
scameron@fire 269 $ cvs status
cvs status: Examining .
===================================================================
File: bar Status: Locally Modified
Working revision: 1.1 Wed Jan 31 20:00:29 2001
Repository revision: 1.1 /u1/scameron/xyz/zzz/aaa/bar,v
Sticky Tag: pathological_tag (revision: 1.1)
Sticky Date: (none)
Sticky Options: (none)
===================================================================
File: foo Status: Up-to-date
Working revision: 1.1 Wed Jan 31 19:59:08 2001
Repository revision: 1.1 /u1/scameron/xyz/zzz/aaa/foo,v
Sticky Tag: pathological_tag (branch: 1.1.2)
Sticky Date: (none)
Sticky Options: (none)
scameron@fire 270 $ cvs update -r pathological_tag.origin
cvs update: Updating .
cvs update: conflict: bar is modified but no longer in the
repository
C bar
scameron@fire 271 $
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
