On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 06:22:33PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have a project in CVS which is a feature enhancement patch to an > open source project. My feature enhanced code is checked into the > trunk. Each major release of the open source project is checked into > the CVS vendor branch. I have been developing successfully in this > manner for quite some time now.
I do that too. > What has happened that is different that I don't understand how to > handle is the following. The open source project had to create a security > patch to the last production release. A branch was created off the last > release tag, and the changes for the security patch were stored in > that branch. This is where I am a bit lost. I don't see a direct > way to create a branch within my vendor branch so I can track this security > patch release. I don't see why you can't, from a sandbox containing a checkout of the last vendor branch import (which, of course being a vendor import, will have a tag and is therefore easy to check out again): cvs tag -b vendor_release3_security # to create the branch point cvs update -r vendor_release3_security # to switch the sandbox onto the branch # copy in the security patch version, which will update files and may add some new ones # remove any files not present in the security update # use cvs add and cvs remove to effect those changes in CVS cvs commit cvs tag vendor_release3_security1 This method won't give you the ability to use cvs import to get new security-branch versions, but it will give you what you want otherwise. Of course your tag naming conventions may differ from my example. > > I do see in the CVS documentation you can have multiple vendor branches, > like the RED and BLUE team examples discussed in 13.6 here: > https://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs-1.11.6/cvs_13.html#SEC104 > > This is not the same as creating a branch within a vendor branch. However, > I will use this mechanism to track the security patch release in my > situation, unless someone here can describe a better way to accomplish what > I am trying so solve. I think that would work if the security branch doesn't get a lot of updates, but it would get pretty confusing otherwise, and either way I bet it would make for some pretty bizarre internal deltas. :-) -- Doug Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlee.org Bartimaeus Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bartsite.com "The most exhausting thing in life is being insincere." - Anne Morrow Lindbergh {American Author} _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
