[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Updating file versions from 1.x to 2.x
From: |
Cameron, Steve |
Subject: |
Re: Updating file versions from 1.x to 2.x |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:49:33 -0600 |
Michael Bailey wrote:
>
> I've been asked to update file versions for all files on a branch to 2.0
> Although I realise this is not the cvs way, would it be A Bad Thing?
>
In short, yes, it's a bad thing in my opinion. it will only cause
confusion without providing any real benefits that are not better
provided by symbolic tags.
> If not, is there an easy way to increment the versions of all files on a
> branch to be 2.0?
>
Not advised, though the manual has this to say, if you are hell-bent on
doing it.
http://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs_4.html#SEC47
I wrote a patch for CVS which contains (along with a bunch of other stuff)
this change to the cvs.texinfo:
! (@pxref{Tags}).
!
! In fact, let's just go ahead and say right now that you are
! STRONGLY advised against using @samp{cvs commit -r}
! to manually set revision numbers. It is STRONGLY recommended that
! you just allow CVS to assign revision numbers however it likes.
! You should use tags instead of trying to assign some meaning to
! revision numbers.
!
! However, if, with that caution in mind, you still want to set the
numeric revisions, the @samp{-r} option to @code{cvs
commit} can do that. The @samp{-r} option implies the
@samp{-f} option, in the sense that it causes the