I've tried it out, it DOES work the way I described. At least when I do it the straight forward way using WinCVS 1.2 accessing our CVS server 1.11 on Solaris. According to Cederqvist it's not supposed to work that way though. There seem to be a lack of standard conformance in either WinCVS or Solaris CVS (which one is setting rev no?).
I guess it will work fine for us anyhow, since we don't need to bother about revision numbers now that we're using CVS, and pre-CVS files will still be possible to trace using the revision numbers. /Thomas > Subject: Re: Major revision number compatibility? > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Eliassson) > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:43:27 -0500 (EST) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Jones) > > Thomas Eliassson writes: >> >> This also means that it's perfectly ok (even preferred) for new files to >> be numbered with 1.1, as long as I can still track files from before we >> had CVS. I also checked that this is the way it works (at least with our >> CVS setup), so if one file in the directory has rev. 2.6, a newly added >> file will have rev.no. 1.1. > > No, that isn't the way it works. If the highest existing rev. no. in > the directory is 2.6, a newly added file will have rev. 2.1. > > -Larry Jones -- Personal reply? Remove .qb in mail address (spam blocker). _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
