Yes, this might work...I was also thinking maybe read/write locks for branches, just in case the branches ever needed to be 're-activated'.
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 04:22:58PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:18:23PM -0600, David Everly wrote: > > After I merge a branch into the trunk, I would like to make it so that > > people cannot commit to the branch anymore. Would someone please suggest > > a good way of doing this? > > Would it suffice to "cvs rm" everything on the branch, so that > when someone goes "cvs update -rbranch", they get nothing? > > That wouldn't *prevent* someone from committing to the branch, > but it'd give them a pretty strong hint that doing so isn't what > they really want... > > -- > > | | /\ > |-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | | / > The world has been attacked. The world must respond ... [but] we must > be guided by a commitment to do what works in the long run, not by what > makes us feel better in the short run. > - Jean Chr�tien, Prime Minister of Canada > > _______________________________________________ > Info-cvs mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] V-Net: 622-3286 Phone: 1-719-535-3286 Pager: 1-800-724-3624 # 140-1311 _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
