On Jul 28, 6:59 am, "Risman, Mark" <[email protected]> wrote: > Lee, > > It looks like your RCP_5_0_1 branch is indeed off of RCP_5_0 tag. If you > look at the output from your "status" command (or a "log" command if you > were to look at that), notice where it says "branch: 1.103.2" next to > the branch name "RCP_5_0_1". The "1.103" in that spot means that the > branch is off of the RCP_5_0 tag, which currently points to 1.103. ok.
> > If you look at RCP_5_0_2, you'll see "1.103..." there too; this is also > a branch from the same place. ?? RCP_5_0_2 looks like a revision off the RCP_5_0_2 branch to me. > > Also note that "RCP_5_0" is indeed a tag, but not a trunk. it is supposed to be the trunk. >CVS will > allow that tag to be moved to any other revision, if someone were to > tell it so. The branch is always off of a specific revision, not tag, so > these branches will be off of 1.103, regardless of what happens to the > RCP_5_0 tag. for this file. i understand CVS creates the branch off each revision number for each file, of which there are over 700 in this case. > > For more information on how to interpret those revision numbers, please > seehttp://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.11.22/cvs_5.html#SEC58. You can > change that URL to match the cvs version you have. i think i finally understand the revision numbers. if you'll bear with me, let me summarize what the intended branching philosophy here is. development of RCP proceeded linearly up to RCP_5_0, primarily for a platform we'll call A. This was stable, tagged and released. Subsequently, development was continued primarily for a different platform B and it diverged from the platform A code. so then RCP_6_0 was released. it is hard to say what the main trunk should be: platform A or B. nevertheless RCP_6_0 is the trunk, right or wrong. meanwhile a bug was found in RCP_5_0. so a branch was created called RCP_5_0_1. badly named i think. the fix was put in and tagged by the same name, RCP_5_0_1. bad idea. there were a few other changes and RCP_5_0_2 was tagged. so there should be this fixit branch which will have subsequent tags. i'm really confused about whether this is a good strategy. lee > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > sparkylee > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 6:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: commiting a sticky file > > i do have an RCP_5_0_1 branch. i can check out, edit and commit. > apparently i do NOT have an RCP_5_0_2 branch. so when i check THAT > out, i can't commit changes. > > status on a typical file shows: > > []:/cygdrive/c/lees/dev/rcp502/rcp/src/rcp/rus: cvs status -v Rus.java > | less > =================================================================== > File: Rus.java Status: Up-to-date > > Working revision: 1.103.2.2 > Repository revision: 1.103.2.2 /home/cvs/repository/rcp/src/ > rcp/rus/Rus.java,v > Commit Identifier: O6D7s2oDTzFTDPUt > Sticky Tag: RCP_5_0_2 (revision: 1.103.2.2) > Sticky Date: (none) > Sticky Options: (none) > > Existing Tags: > RCP_5_0_2 (revision: 1.103.2.2) > RCP_5_0_1 (branch: 1.103.2) > RCP_6_0_CVN (revision: 1.104) > RCP_5_0 (revision: 1.103) > RCP_4_9_2 (revision: 1.102) > RCP_4_9_1 (revision: 1.101) > RCP_4_9_0 (revision: 1.100) > .... > > the intention was to branch RCP_5_x off of the RCP_5_0 trunk. > > i wonder how i can fix this? > > lee > > ********************************************************** > > MLB.com: Where Baseball is Always On- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
