[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS 'tag' command does not write 'T' record to history

From: Sam Roberts
Subject: Re: CVS 'tag' command does not write 'T' record to history
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:07:33 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.17i

Quoting Stephen Rasku <stephen@tgivan.com>, who wrote:
> >Yair Lenga writes [in very long lines]:
> >> 
> >> We are using the 'TAG' command to manage released code. The 
> documentation indicates that tag updates
> >> will be included in the history file by default (or by adding 'T' 
> to the logHistory option in the config file).
> >
> >Where?  Only rtag is logged, not tag; if the documentation really 
> says
> >otherwise, it needs to be corrected.
> And an explanation of why there would be a difference would be useful 
> too.  Its not obvious why these two commands would behave differently.

And rtag isn't discussed at all except for the command line summary
notes, which isn't good since you must use it if, for instance, you
wish to create a tag that can be used as an argument to -j reliably.
Without using rtag, you can't tag removed files, so people who get
the idea from the merge documentation that "tag" is a good command
to use to tag a branch prior to a merge will be in trouble.


Sam Roberts <sroberts@certicom.com>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]