16 Mar 2001 scameron   » (Journeyer)

I joined this place so I could reply the an article by jtauber which talked about CVS.

But, I find I'm not worthy of replying (yet).

So my reply will live in obscurity here:

From the article:

> up CVS major revision (so 2.0 = first release, 3.0 = 
> second release, etc) 
> cvs commit -m "NEW RELEASE" -r y.0 
> cvs update -A 

Using "cvs commit -r" to change the revision numbers is generally regarded by those on the info-cvs@gnu.org mailing list as a very bad idea. You should just learn to ignore the revision numbers that CVS assigns to individual files.

Using "cvs commit -r 2.0" (for example) can break certain obscure usages of CVS...well, those usages are tather so obscure they're probably not worth mentioning, but in any case using "cvs commit -r" is regarded as a bad idea by those who develop CVS.

Using "cvs update -A" will blow away any sticky tags, including those marking files as "binary", in case you have any of those, and should be used with caution.

I have a patch which (among other things) would allow you to say "cvs update -r .trunk" and have the desired effect, but without blowing away sticky tags that were not meant to be blown away. (e.g. binary-ness). my patch is here.

-- steve

Latest blog entries     Older blog entries

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!