Hi! >From what I have gathered from the conversation that was going on, is this,
You want to TAG only a few seleteced files which are in the checked out local copy of your machine. Well! Then why go into all this trouble, if you alsdo do not want to remove these files as suggested and do not want to perform a commit then the best thing to be would be to selectively tag the files. Why can't you just choose the files you want to tag and run the TAG command only on those. This way only those files get tagged and not the complete module, which is not want you as it is want to happen. Thus, happy customer, happy repository users, happy You and of cource a Happy CVS Repository Administrator (if that is not you... :-)) Gagneet >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >Of Andy Jones >Sent: Friday, 26 March, 2004 14:42 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: cvs tag: some slightly counterintuitive behaviour > > >Jason Carucci>>> >>No, I believe cvs will tag the files in the repository, the files in >>your working directory are irrelevant for this operation. > >I'm not saying that CVS behaved wrongly, just in a way that >was counterintuitive. To say that cvs tag requires a working >directory, but not the files in it, is surely that. > >Derek Price>>> >>`cvs tag' is defined to tag the BASE revisions of the files in the >>working directory and this is exactly the behavior you are >describing. >>[...] Therefore, I would argue that this sort of behavior is >simply too >>much to expect from CVS. > >Maybe it is. The point I am making is, it surprised me. Here >is what the manual says: > > "tag [options] tag [files.] > Add a symbolic tag to checked out version of files...." > >Now I've *seen* this particular little gotcha, on re-reading >the above I can see that CVS is behaving as advertised. But I >think it is fair to say that anyone reading it who had not had >this happen to them, might get the wrong idea, as I did. > >Derek Price>>> >>The work-around, and a pretty straight-forward one I should think, is >>to commit your changes before tagging. > >No, no. I don't want to remove the files. I just want to not >tag them. Now it looks like I will have to tag the whole >sandbox and then untag a list of about 30 files - not fun. > >Is it really a pain to change (assuming it should be changed)? > Modified files shouldn't be a problem - just ignore them, as >now. Anyone who doesn't like this behaviour should be doing >cvs tag -c anyway... > >Of course, the simplest fix is to add a couple of lines to the manual. > >Don't get me wrong, this isn't a major gripe. I just wanted >to flag a small bit of odd behaviour. > >Andy. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Info-cvs mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs > _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
