Heather wrote:
Okay, thanks for your quick repy! We were aware that this was basically a 'cosmetic' fix. We print the CVS log entries in the header of the files to easily see our changes, so we're seeing the 1.7.2.XXX, etc and wanted to 'clean it up' a bit so it was easier to read.
It is not a 'cosmetic' fix. Revision numbers are used by CVS to keep track of branches, etc. You would be manipulating meta-data used by CVS to operate properly. Tread carefully!
Think of it as manually changing the index value on the records of a table in a relational database. (CVS is not a relational database, but work with me here.) Will the relational indexes work after the change? Will SQL statements work correctly if a range of records now has different index numbers? Are you ready to trust the database engine coders to handle this data change correctly?
Please look here http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/notes/cvs/revisions.html for a brief discussion on the topic that helped me explain to my coworkers.
As Jim said, use tags, not revision numbers. Grief may result especially when dealing with branches!
Alan
_______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
