Alexander von Below [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I continued to work not in the head (because I misunderstood branches > and stuff), but in VER_1-bt. > So what I have in VER_1-bt is, de facto, the current, QA'ed, released > and shipping version. (A copy of it also resides somewhere else on my > disk.). What's in the head is pretty irrelevant to me at this point Yes, that sounds like a good reason to move the branch over. Actually, you could still merge the files - CVS will detect that no changes have been made on the trunk, and just copy the branch over.
> To me, it looks like I want to replace the head version, > especially as > cvs complains about each and every $Revision$ keyword. Of course they > differ, but can't vim handle that when I do a merge? If not, which > revision number should I keep in the file? Or throw them out > altogether? You can use the -kk option when merging to suppress keyword expansion. Just remember to clear the -kk flag after you've finished the merge. I think CVS could handle this a little more intelligently, and ignore any differences in keyword expansions. -- Jim Hyslop Senior Software Designer Leitch Technology International Inc. (<http://www.leitch.com/>) Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (<http://www.cuj.com/experts>) _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
