Re: cvs rtag -r BRANCH -D date

[Derek R. Price]

Ken.Olstad@lawson.com wrote:

> larry.jones@sdrc.com writes:
> > Simply allowing both -r and -D is intuitive, but it does cause
> > problems for diff.  I'm throughly undecided about what the best
> > approach is.
>
> One option to specify one revision (-r<branch>:<date>) seems cleaner
> than two (-r<branch> -D<date>) in all cases, especially where more
> than one option may be specified, as in cvs log and cvs diff.  The
> choice of ':' was unfortunate, though, because it conflicts with the
> RCS-style revision range specification, as in 'cvs log
> -r<rev1>:<rev2>'.  The '@' character, as in <branch>@<date>, would
> have been a nice choice.  Come to think of it, since '@' isn't legal
> in revision numbers, tags, or dates (I think), maybe support for this
> syntax could be added (everywhere: for diff -r, update -r, update -j,
> get -r, ...) without breaking anything.
>
> Anybody see problems with this?

Maybe.  I'm not sure about the datespec rules either, but if we go with
'@', I'm going to say date@branch is probably the more generally
intuitive way to select a point (date) on a branch due to the meaning
already assigned to '@' in other (non-cvs) contexts.

Derek

--
Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:dprice@collab.net         CollabNet ( http://collab.net )
--
This is the fourth?
                        - Thomas Jefferson's last words
                            (he died on the 4th of July)