I'm well aware that bumping trunk revisions to 2.x or greater is
pretty useless, and that tags are the right way to go, especially
since after you do it, newly-added files will still get 1.x
revisions. However...
On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 05:01:45PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> However people should *not* ever be doing such silly things -- there are
> more corner cases than just this one whre they can get into trouble!
... I wasn't aware that it's actively dangerous, as Greg seems to
be saying. If so, is there any reason to keep it? Why not just
make commit's -r option go away?
> [ On Monday, June 19, 2000 at 17:12:42 (+0100), Mike Little wrote: ]
> > Would '-r1' work if some previous cvs admin had updated vast numbers of the
> > trunk revisions to 3.x (presumably when version 3.0 of the product was
> > released)?
"say -r1 when you mean latest-on-trunk" is a kludge, to work
around the lack of ".trunk". That it fails on trunk revision 2.x
isn't a corner case in CVS; it's a limitation of the kludge.
The man's offering to obviate this kludge with a correct
solution; what's all the grumbling about?
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
[Microsoft's] www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) ... on FreeBSD
- Netcraft's "What's that site running?" service, 12-Jun-2000
