"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 the
repository", warning on a case by case basis. It should at least give a specific
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
--
Derek Price CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
--
Boy: A noise with dirt on it
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
