Let's try a more complete answer than the one Larry gave you.

Assume you have revision 1.2 of foo.c in your sandbox.  Let's also assume you have tagged revision 1.2 with a "Release1" tag.  When you run "cvs remove foo.c", CVS "marks" the file for removal by modifying the foo.c line in the CVS/Entries file.  Then, when you run "cvs commit", CVS creates a placeholder 1.3 revision in the foo.c,v file in the repository and marks it's status as "dead".  This prevents you from getting the file if you do a "cvs update" or "cvs checkout".  However "cvs remove" followed by "cvs commit" does nothing with the "Release1" tag on revision 1.2.  So, if you then check out "Release1", you will get revision 1.2 of foo.c into your sandbox.  If you do not want to have foo.c included in "Release1", you need to use either "cvs rtag -d" or "cvs tag -d" to remove the "Release1" tag from foo.c.

Does that help?

-- Lynn

"Eric / Chang-Cheng, Chao" wrote:

Hi, everybody, I'm wondering what happens in this situation:

1.      I tagged the files in my project as "Release1".
2.      After some more changes to the project, I decided that I do not
need a certain file and do a "cvs remove" on that file, followed by a
"cvs commit".

Now, do I get that file back if I check out "Release1" of the project or
did I just removed it from "Release1" as well ???

Thanks.

Eric

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 __
/ /\/  Lynn Clark                     Direct Dial: 303-544-5447
\ \    Staff Software Engineer        Fax: 303-442-0198
/ /    Software Integration           Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\_\/\  Xilinx Boulder                 http://www.indra.com/~lclark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The big computer industry battle of the future will be waged between
Linux and Windows NT." 
 -- Rob Pike, researcher at Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs unit

"There appear to be few if any technical reasons to move from UNIX to
Windows NT. The performance of Linux exceeds that of NT 4.0 and Linux
appears to be more reliable."
 -- David Korn, AT&T, author of ksh

"Those who fail to understand Unix are destined to reimplement it,
poorly." -- Henry Spencer
 

Reply via email to