On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Peter Toft wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Stuart Cooper wrote: > > > > try cvs update -A instead. > > > > nope, that didn't work but it was well worth a try. > > Yeah - I use "update -A" to get the current versions of all files, and yes > it clears the stickty tags. But as you write it is not a solution for what > I wrote yesterday. > > > > > I've got a handscrawled note next to $Name$ in my reference guide which > > reads: > > > > ################################################################ > > "This keyword is expanded only if one checks out with an explicit tag name" > > eg cvs co -r tag gives a $Name: tag$ expansion of the keyword" > > ################################################################ > > > > Obviously the rules are a bit more subtle than that. Keyword expansion > > happens > > at checkout time, so I guess your update -r TAG1 causes a checkout of a.txt > > only and not b.txt (regardless of whether it's update -A -r TAG1 or just > > update -r TAG1) and the expansion of $Name$ happens to a.txt only as that's > > the only file which gets checked out. > > And I would actually prefer to have b.txt changed as well in my example. > > > The Tag in the text file CVS/Entries is kept OK in each case: > > TAG1 > > $ cat CVS/Entries > > /a.txt/1.1.1.1/Tue Jul 11 23:59:34 2006//TTAG1 > > /b.txt/1.1.1.1/Wed Jul 12 00:14:22 2006//TTAG1 > > D > > > > $ cat CVS/Entries > > /a.txt/1.1.1.1/Tue Jul 11 23:59:34 2006//TTAG2 > > /b.txt/1.2/Wed Jul 12 00:14:16 2006//TTAG2 > > D > > > > Notice when I do the cvs update -r TAG1 from a TAG2 state, I only get > > one file updated: > > $ cvs update -r TAG1 . > > cvs update: Updating . > > U b.txt > > > > Only b.txt checked out by this revert-update, so only b.txt > > keyword-expanded. > > > > I guess to be completely sure of $Name$ validity, you'd trash the > > project completely > > and do a fresh cvs co -r TAG1 project > > Yep - which was a part of my example, but that is clearly a bad solution, > and I guess for most large projects NOT possible in reality.
Should I file a formal bug-request from my description to http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?? I really don't see that the current behaviour is logical nor desired. Best Peter Toft, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pto.linux.dk "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi _______________________________________________ info-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
