On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Thomas Eliassson wrote:
Now when we start using CVS I see that we can
use 'cvs commit -r2.4 file.txt' to commit a file with a specific
revision number (in the example 2.4). Is this safe, or may we run into
some trouble later on?
This is safe, in
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
Hi!
I know that one shouldn't care about revision numbers in CVS, but since
we want to be able to trace old revisions of files, from before we
started to use CVS, we'd like to 'mess' a little with them. The question
is if it's safe.
The major revision number (i.e. 1 in 1.3) may in some of
Thomas Eliassson writes:
The major revision number (i.e. 1 in 1.3) may in some of our files be
increased to 2 or even 3. Now when we start using CVS I see that we can
use 'cvs commit -r2.4 file.txt' to commit a file with a specific
revision number (in the example 2.4). Is this safe, or
Eric Siegerman writes:
Because CVS provides no way to specify that new files should get
a major revision number other than 1, people have to remember to
do it manually. *Every* time. If they forget -- and they will,
being human -- your revision-numbering scheme goes out the
window.
It's
