--- John P Cavanaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 06:04:23AM -0700, Stephen Cameron wrote:
> > John P. Cavanaugh wrote, regarding his preference for "main" or "trunk"
> > over ".trunk":
[....]
>
> Actually its not consistent with other branch names because they dont
> begin with a ., but I dont really care. For our use here I would just
> redefine it to be main and life would go on.
Ok, syntactically inconsistent, semantically consistent. Semantics are what
matters most to me.
> Can you reference branchname.base for example to get a diff from
> where you last updated/checked out from??
>
Isn't this what "BASE" already does? I'm not all that interested in changing
syntactic cosmetics. Or is there more to it that I'm missing?
> > Anyway, one thing I haven't figured out is what to do for the case
> > of the trunk, [... ".trunk.origin", that is. ...]
> You are right, returning 1.1 is definitely not the right answer.
Ok, so I'll have to figure out how to do it correctly then.
But not 'til next week sometime.
[...]
-- steve
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
