RE: Documentation suggested to clearer state restrictions to merg ing removed files

[Cameron, Steve]

Hmm, this might have implcations for my ".origin" patch that I'll have to
look into,
if I didn't already consider it...

http://www.geocities.com/dotslashstar/branch_patch.html

-- steve

Derek R. Price wrote:

         [...] 
> Hmm.  You're right, and the culprit seems to be that 'cvs tag
> tag_on_branch'
> run on the branch skips dead files (intentionally), so when a merge is
> attempted from a single static tag, only changes in files containing the
> tag
> are noticed and merged.
> 
> Comments on the following addition to the "update options" node?
> 
>  revision which the working directory is based on, and
>  the revision specified in the @samp{-j} option.
> 
> +Note that using a single @samp{-j TAGNAME} option rather than
> address@hidden BRANCHNAME} to merge changes from a branch will
> +often not remove files which were removed on the branch since the dead
> +revisions do not contain the static tag.  Use the branch tag to merge all
> +changes on the branch or use two static tags as merge endpoints to be
> sure
> +all intended changes are propagated in the merge.
> 
>  In addition, each @samp{-j} option can contain an optional
>  date specification which, when used with branches, can
> 
> Derek
        [...]