I can think of specific examples where testing, etc. may not happen in a 'working copy' of the code. For example, one of the projects I am using cvs for is a website. I have a script in cvs that, upon checkin, copies the file over to a directory so that the 'current' cvs version of the site can be immediately tested. There is not branching in the code or anything fancy so I currently use rtag to tag the head of the branch when we decide it is ready. While this is a very limited case and there are few enough developers that I can still run rtag and tell everybody to not checkin anything for a minute. Also, it can be convienent to use rtag if cvs is integrated with other tools. One thing I think this shows is that cvs is a tool for developers, by developers, which may not work in every instance.
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 02:15, Greg A. Woods wrote: > [ On Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 22:32:18 (-0700), Mike Ayers wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Tag locking change > > > > Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > > > If you really Really REALLY want to tag the head of a branch then just > > > check out the branch (or do a "cvs update" in any existing working > > > directory which has no un-committed changes) then then apply the tag to > > > what you get as a result by running "cvs tag" in that working directory. > > > That way you can know ahead of time exactly what you've got. It's then > > > up to the user whether or not they actually look to see what's there > > > before they tag it. > > > > What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to tag the head of > > a branch in an instantaneous fashion. > > Me too! :-) > > > Wouldn't you want to > > build/test, etc. first? > > Well, in theory you could check out a working directory with the new tag > and test it then, and you could adjust the tagged revision in any files > where some unexpected change had in fact crept in. > > It does seem like the wrong way to go about things though especially > when you can just update a working directory and then be certain that > what you tag is correct in the first place. > > > I'm kind of lost on what the point of contention is here. What is it > > that someone would want to do that is affected by the tag locking > > change? Could someone please clarify? > > I think the issue is some of us don't want 'cvs rtag' to "work" when the > intent is to tag the head of a branch, especially not with the new more > per-directory-only locking scheme it will use to work faster and to > cause less contention (i.e. it should give a usage error). Other people > seem to think that indeed it should be possible to tag the head of a > branch with 'cvs rtag'. > > Indeed silly tricks could still be done with the likes of specifying a > time only one second prior to the current time. Of course the very idea > of using timestamps is open to question as well since unless you have > some external way to ensure the repository is quiescent for a decent > window of time you still can't know what you're tagging. > > CVS just gives users far too much rope for many tasks. > > -- > Greg A. Woods > > +1 416 218-0098; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > _______________________________________________ > Info-cvs mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
