[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [specifying revision numbers on checkin - is it reasonable?]
> No, it is not. Revision numbers are for CVS's internal use > only; If that's the case, then why was the revision number ever exposed in the first place? Is it a legacy of RCS or SCCS - do they not support symbolic tags? So are you saying that "cvs ci -r <revision number>" is a mistake and should not have been allowed? > people > should ignore them and resist the temptation to muck with > them. If you > want to mark a known starting point (or anything else), use a tag. I agree that tags should be the _preferred_ way to do this, but I really do not see why you are so vehemently opposed to manually forcing revision numbers under special circumstances. What problems will this introduce? Again, under special circumstances, not under day-to-day use. I admit, I cannot think of any real-life reason I'd want to do it, but that doesn't mean I should be prohibited from using the revision numbers if I come up with a reason to do so. The major drawback with tags is that they can be moved or deleted, without any history of the changes. You cannot change a revision number, unless you want to go through a lot of work (or unless you feel like manually editing the RCS file - definitely not a recommended practise!!). -- Jim Hyslop Senior Software Designer Leitch Technology International Inc. (http://www.leitch.com) Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com/experts) _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
