-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:01:23PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It does the same thing even without the rm. Updating to a particular
> > revision (whether numeric or symbolic) *always* sets a sticky tag to
> > that revision. What makes you think BASE should be special?
>
> 1. Its rather useless if that's proper behavior.
> 'cvs up -r BASE' should give you back the same file you had checked
> out - for instance if you hacked the file to pieces and just want
> the original file back.
> 2. mdb said so.
Hmmm... I thought I said
cvs update -rBASE -p foo.c > foo.c
would make you lose all of your foo.c changes and get you back the
version you want. Both of the commands:
cvs update -rHEAD foo.c
cvs update -rBASE foo.c
will make a sticky revision that is fixed at the current top-of-branch
version (-rHEAD) of foo.c or a frozen version of the current revision
(-rBASE) of the branch of foo.c ...
I think there may have been some talk of the proposed special symbolic
tag modifiers:
.head .base .commitid .prev .trunk .origin .root .next
that might have the impact of sometimes not making static sticky tags.
I do not recall of the details at present.
-- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFIHjbnCg7APGsDnFERAmIPAJ9nshJ8t7YRypOp0GqlpEE3X2iUqACg2YxQ
nIYQ5afn2FGm7oHVI7cHo4o=
=v0y3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
