Greg woods wrote:
[...]
> My preference would be to do what is effectively the opposite of what
> Steve Cameron's proposed patch does.
>
> I.e make "HEAD" always refer to the head of the current branch
> (or the trunk if there is no sticky branch in effect; or if no branch
> name is given with '-r')
>
I can see how that interpretation of HEAD could be useful, so that
scrpts may operate on arbitrary branches without having to know
what branch they are on, or in a sandbox containing modules from
different branches. (if that's not using CVS "incorrectly" :)
My view of it was that currently HEAD appears to mean the head
of the trunk, with the one exception being that "cvs diff" treats it
differently. So my reasoning was to "fix" that one excetption, is
all.
> and make "BASE" always refer to the base of
> the current branch (or the trunk if there is no branch in effect).
>
> There is no real need for "TRUNK" -- it is the same as specifying "1".
> (And of course the base of the trunk is always "1.1", not that this
> matters in day-to-day normal usage.)
[smc] Ah, I forgot about that, I never use revision numbers, so
this
always slips my mind. Does this work in all cases, even
when you have RCS files that came from someplace else (e.g.
just plain RCS)? (I think maybe I asked this before, & I think
maybe
the answer is "yes", but I wonder how it works, if it does...my gut
feeling is to think it won't work...
and of course it's too hard to just try it... :) Maybe a little
later...
> Having a symbolic name for "TRUNK"
> isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does crowd the tag namespace
> unnecessarily. If you really want to use it then why not just manually
> add a real "TRUNK" tag and be done with it?
[smc] How do you do that?
[smc] I'm pretty sure
cvs rtag -b -r 1 TRUNK everything
won't work... right? It will create a branch that's called
TRUNK, but it won't _be_ the trunk.
