Greg Woods wrote:
> [ On Saturday, June 17, 2000 at 21:41:49 (-0700), Stephen Cameron wrote: ]
> > Subject: ".trunk" patch refinement
> >
> > Ok, here's a refinement of my ".trunk' patch that gives
> > the trunk a branch-tag name, just like other branches
> > (from the user's perspective, the implementation is rather
> > different.)
>
> OK, so exactly how is this different from "-r1"? Seems like it's the
> same thing to me, which means it's an awful waste of coding effort, not
> to mention the extra typing necessary to use it... ;-)
[smc]
".trunk" has the possibility of handling the case where
sombody has done "cvs commit -r2 foo", (though I haven't
tested that case.)
We've had this conversation before, actually, here's part
of what we wrote:, (thanks deja.com)
> Greg Woods wrote:
> [...: ]
> > It makes me wonder though if a magic pseudo-tag could even be
> > implemented right in the case of bumped release numbers without
jumping
> > through a whole lot of hoops. I can't at the moment think of a
way to
> > inidicate to RCS that the top of the trunk should be always used
without
> > getting the "default branch" stuff involved and messing with
that
> > doesn't work well with CVS either since it's effectively
reserved for
> > internal use only.
> [smc] Yeah I think implementing what I want would
> be pretty hard... But, the changes might be at least
> localized to the RCS code, excepting any changes
> needed to handle a tag name that begins with a dot,
> (i.e. ".trunk" or something as mentioned in the docs.
And then I went on to explain that I was "bullheaded
enough" to want ".trunk" even though I didn't _need_ it. :-)
-- steve
