[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag? |
Date: |
20 Sep 2003 08:57:02 +0900 |
Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
> > BTW, is it alright to use `tag' to create _occasional_ tagged
> > versions in branch, e.g., base-0 = tag, patch-1 = patch, patch-2
> > = patch, patch-3 = tag, ...? This seems convenient in some
> > cases, but I vaguely recall a warning against it somewhere.
>
> However, I wonder if in 9/10 of your occaisional cases, you wouldn't
> rather `get' the thing you would tag, `sync-tree' with the version you
> want to commit to, then commit.
My reason for wanting to do this is this: I'd like to keep around
branches for my own use (e.g., my `x' branch), whose contents are
eventually merged back into my main branch, and basically the branch is
then defunct. However later, I'd like to do the same thing again, and I
don't particularly want to change the version number (which would
probably be the `kosher' way to do this), e.g. reuse the same
branch/version. In this case, it's likely that the delta between the
last patch of the previously defunct `x' branch and the new hip `x'
branch is pretty large; since really I just want the new patch level to
be a straight copy of the main branch, a tag/link is the obvious thing
to do.
BTW, what's the problem with doing replay or whatever in this situation?
It seems like a replaying a continuation changeset in an existing
project tree should just delete the entire project tree contents, and
then checkout new sources; does it not do this? I guess one oddity
would be that such a changeset would not be (easily) reversable, but I'd
think that's not usually a problem.
-Miles
--
We have met the enemy... and he is us. -- Pogo
- [Gnu-arch-users] -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Robert Collins, 2003/09/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?, Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20
- merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Doran Moppert, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Doran Moppert, 2003/09/20
- Re: merge algorithms (Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: -L option for tag?), Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/20