[ On Wednesday, December 3, 2003 at 12:36:35 (-0600), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ] > Subject: Re: CVS Version CHange > > Could be. The RCS revision number looks too much like a standard sort > of release designation, and that leads to trouble. It appears to > contain more information than is needed to specify a revision. I > like the idea of giving the revisions simple numbers (as Subversion > does) to show their arbitrariness.
Yes, that's sort of what I was getting at. > On the other hand, it is nice to have ways to avoid making irretrievable > mistakes (and removing or moving a tag can be that). Indeed. It's just important to very clearly make the distinction between fat-finger-avoidance features and policy enforcement features. > I've made many > of those in my lifetime despite knowing better. As the CVS admin, I > managed to remove a branch tag from a directory once, and then modified > one of my principles ("Never hit the return/enter key before you > carefully examined what you've just typed") for doing such by adding > the clause "and it doesn't count as careful examination if anybody is > talking to you at the time". I couldn't have said it better myself! :-) In theory the CVSROOT/history file could be used to log the revision number from each file when a tag is applied and such a log could be used both to undo such fat-finger-mistakes as well as to do basic audits to detect whether tags had been moved or not. I seem to remember asking for such a feature way back before CVS-II was first officially released, and once upon a time I even started to work on implementing it, but for some reason I've never found it important enough to actually finish the job (even though it's relatively simple!). -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs