[cvsnt] Re: "cvs commit -r " problem

Julian Opificius julianop at barnlea.com
Fri Jul 22 19:35:28 BST 2005

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 sales@march-hare.com.

Rick Genter wrote:
>>Tags? You're joking, right?
> Yes and no. For the scenario cited (code review), I've found that
> usually a code review is a planned event and not intended to be
> performed on an arbitrary revision of code. In fact, in code review
> scenarios I've been in, we've usually wanted to review the code that
> went into a particular QA build, for example, for which a tag does
> exist.
Good point. I do the same in that scenario.
>>Why in the heck would I want to tag every single incremental revision
> of 
>>a file when the automatically assigned revision number is a perfectly 
>>valid way of doing so?
> I have no problem with using an automatically assigned revision number.
> What started this thread was someone wanting to override the
> automatically assigned revision number. That's something that I (and the
> CVSNT developers) have a problem with. If you want something other than
> the automatically assigned revision number, use a tag.

I agree with you - strongly, in fact: the ability to force revision 
numbers would make it very difficult for me to justify the use of CVS or 
CVSNT for FAA work.

I just thought for a moment you were proposing that any access to a 
non-head revision would need a tag, and that didn't seem sensible.

Again, though, I'm worried that any new internal revision identification 
mechanism might lose the inherent chronological implications of the 
current numerical system.


More information about the cvsnt mailing list
Download the latest CVSNT, TortosieCVS, WinCVS etc. for Windows 8 etc.
@CVSNT on Twitter   CVSNT on Facebook