[ On Thursday, June 22, 2000 at 10:02:19 (-0500), Cameron, Steve wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: ".trunk" patch refinement
>
> ok, that's an oversimplification. but this ".latest" thing doesn't do
> anything that the branch tag by itself doesn't do already, is my
> point, so I think I have to vote against that one.
Yes, good point.
".latest" only has meaning for the trunk where "1" won't already work
(i.e. in a screwed up repository! ;-).
> Perhaps there's even some reasoning related to vendor
> branches which can explain a method to the madness
> around "cvs diff" and "HEAD", though nobody has yet
> explained it to me.
I don't think there's a connection between vendor branch support and the
currently screwy support for "cvs diff -rHEAD". It's never done what
I've wanted it to do in vendor-branched modules anyway....
> Also, though it might be nice to have a consistent
> vision for where we would like things to go, I don't
> think all these things necessarily need to be done
> at the same time. Changes to how "cvs import" works
> for instance could be done independently from changes
> to implement the "<branchtag>.base" thing for instance.
I've already done the "import to trunk" patch once. It got effectively
lost during the integration of RCS library code. In theory it's
extremely easy to re-implement though, particularly if you vary the
meaning of "import" a bit to mean that only an initial import can be
done to the trunk to create new files with "1.1" and that subsequent
imports to an existing module are not allowed.
> Also, grand plans on this list have a history of going
> nowhere. :-)
Got any spare "round tuits"?
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
