On Wednesday, August 9, "Robert S. Sfeir" wrote:
>
> Honestly (no Robert lie)? None really, but tells me this is version 1
> revision 6 of the app file, and that it's build 001. As opposed to version
> 1 revision 7. With web-based software it matters, I have all my
> developers, including HTML coders working with CVS, and we're not going to
> make an installer to figure out where things are. I would much rather it
> be done in CVS since I can give our clients anonymous access to download
> the updates as we finish them up. The updates don't necessarily require us
> to branch out or start a new version. They just might be revisions within
> the same source.
>
> I certainly didn't mean to start a huge debate about it. A yes or no
> answer would have been good enough, but thanks for pointing all this
> out. :-) We can deal with the versioning as it is.
No, not in the way you want. But please, have a look at tags (not
really branches yet), they will let you do what you want. You can
move the tag (call it "CURRENT_GOOD_VERSION") to the version of each
file you wish to have in "production", and they can simply update on
that tag. Once the tag moves, they will get the latest and greatest
that has been approved.
--Toby.
