On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Carol Spears wrote:
> On 2002-02-22 at 1256.39 +0100, Sven Neumann typed this mail:
> > Hi,
> > Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > tonight i decided to try the cvs gimp-1.3. i found it very difficult to
> > > convince the cvs server that i wanted the new gimp now, having followed
> > > bex's how to for the stable gimp.
> > >
> > > eventually i renamed the gimp directory and was able to successfully
> > > check it out, it seems like there should be a more elegant method to do
> > > this.
> > what did you do? Tried to convert the stable checkout into the HEAD
> > branch? The branch tags in your stable CVS checkout are sticky, that
> > means they apply even though you don't specify them directly. There
> > are ways to work around this (use cvs update -A, see cvs --help update)
> > but in the case of The GIMP I'd suggest you do a fresh checkout since
> > we have moved so many files that upgrading CVS from stable to unstable
> > doesn't really make sense.
> nope, i didn't try to convert anything, i wanted both branches. what i
> did to be able to get the unstable branch was to change the name of the
> module for the stable branch from "gimp" to "stable" and checked out
> simply "gimp" this time. it totally worked. but ususally when i change
> the name of something to get it to work, i can hear the laughter in the
> background ....
> hence my question about having a more elegant way to tell cvs what i
> would like.
actually, this is considered the elegant way of doing this. That is the
way that CVS was designed.
> i will continue to rename the modules as i update them, since it worked
> fine. i just thought there would be a more elegant way to do it.
um, you shouldn't have to continually rename them. When in the directory
checked out, type cvs update, and the client is smart enough to know which
module and branch to check out.
Gimp-developer mailing list