[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Reimporting vendor projects where items have been deleted

From: Derek R. Price
Subject: Re: Reimporting vendor projects where items have been deleted
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:41:12 -0500

Eric Siegerman wrote:

> Note that if all of these conditions are met except the last one,
> ie. the ,v file has an appropriate vendor branch, but the latest
> revision on that branch is marked "dead", then of course the new
> release tag should be added to that dead revision -- as happens
> now for an unchanged "live" file.

No it shouldn't.  The only time I can see _any_ reason to do this is for the 
tag used
in the import during which the file was actually remove and then only to mark 
import which deleted the file.  This information should more likely be in the 
message.  The dead revision really only needs to be attached to the branch.

> Should this be based on the import branch number, rather than
> name?  That is: if, in the above example, branch-tags "vendor1"
> and "vendor2" both referred to branch 1.1.1, then they'd be
> considered identical for this purpose; vendor2_file1 *would* be
> deleted during the "third" import.  But if "vendor1" and
> "vendor2" referred to different branches, eg. the vendor2 import
> had been:
>         $ cvs import -m second -b 1.1.3 tst vendor2 vendor2_v1
> then, as Nathan says, vendor2_file1 would *not* be deleted during
> the "third" import -- indeed, in this specific case, it wouldn't
> have to be deleted, since it wouldn't be on branch 1.1.1 in the
> first place.

Absolutely not.  If the same vendor branch name was used in both cases then it 
already be an error if they point at different branches.

Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( )
mailto:address@hidden         CollabNet ( )
The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the
improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for
what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of
those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and
whose purposes it would answer.  But it is not an idea which this country will
   - Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800

reply via email to

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