Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Oliver Giesen wrote: > Seeing that you can NOT commit to HEAD, and going by the gut feeling that a > Head is something that's at the end/top of something rather than the > something itself, I'm still prefering the view that HEAD is a symbolic name You can commit to HEAD though... That's what you're doing when there's no branch. 'cvs commit -r HEAD foo.txt' works too... Try: cvs update -r HEAD a.txt cvs status a.txt cvs commit -fm "test" a.txt ..this is clearly a commit to HEAD :) >>(with the caveat the if you've changed the default branch it'll be the >>wrong one, but few people ever do that). > > > Hmm, don't like that stance... > It's the only one practical given the fact that changing the default branch isn't versioned. TBH I'm not sure myself even how to change the default branch, and I've never had a need to do it. That doesn't mean there aren't people who do it, but I doubt it's the norm. > >>I need to generalize the parsing one day, to allow that kind of syntax >>everywhere (not just update) and put in the HEAD.1, foo.1 kind of syntax. > > > I'm all for the BranchName.# syntax to replace the current revision > numbering scheme. I'd just prefer the trunk not be named HEAD but something > more "trunky", like TRUNK or MAIN... > I've always referred to the 'HEAD branch' and so have a lot of other people, so it seems it's the common usage. It may not be the best name for it, but it's the name we're stuck with. Defining a different name for HEAD is one of those things that's on the wishlist (low priority I think though). Tony