The difference I have is subtle.
Most everyone on the list defines tagging a file as indicating which files you
want to group into a release.
I define tagging a file as indicating which revisions of files you want to
group into a release. By tagging a dead revision, I am saying "Include the
removal of this file into the next release". Since my files are HTML pages and
images, this makes sense. For source code, it doesn't so much, and I think
that is everyone's problem with it.
Using branches makes no sense for this. CVS is an excellent tool for
maintaining ANY file, not just source. I find it hard to believe that the
implementors INTENDED to have cvs commits not affect removed files. It
obviously simplifies some implementation issues, but there's nothing inherently
wrong with tagging a dead revision, as the file in question WON'T get checked
out/updated, and there is nothing harmful in including removed files in the
output of cvs stat or cvs log.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 11:38:03PM -0600, David L. Martin wrote:
> >Note that main.c DOES NOT get tagged. Even if you 'cvs tag -F some_tag
> main.c'
> >it does not get tagged. You can ONLY tag the new (dead) revision, via
> >'cvs tag -r 1.2 main.c', which is cumbersome, because not all files in a
> source
> >tree are on the same revision. You can also do 'cvs tag -r HEAD main.c',
> but
> >this doesn't have the correct behaviour on a branch.
>
>
> If you want the file to get the tag, then don't remove it from the project!
> It makes perfect sense for the tag not to be applied to the removed file.
> The file wasn't part of the project when the tag was applied, so it
> shouldn't be tagged. Removing (and committing) the file moves the archive
> to the Attic, which is effectively the way of saying "this file is no longer
> in the trunk development path". CVS operations applied to trunk development
> correctly ignore removed files in the Attic. Previous releases for which
> the file was tagged prior to being removed can be reproduced, but for
> purposes of trunk development, removed files should (correctly) not be
> processed.
>
> David
>
--
David Copeland
Software Engineering Director
NOVO
Relationship Architects for e-Business
Voice 415 646 7026 | Fax 415 646 7001
http://www.novocorp.com
