[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Completely new version

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: Completely new version
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 13:59:23 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:10:25PM +0200, Kristian Stobbe wrote:
> Guess I found out myself.
> cvs commit -r XXX.XXX
> But are there any advantages with this one over TAG or the other way
> around?

For a school project that you'll never touch again, this trick is
ok :-)

The problem with it in production, where the code will be worked
on for years, is that CVS doesn't "remember" that you're now on
version 2.0.  Think what will happen the next time you add a new
file.  To maintain the 2.x numbering, you'll have to say "-r 2.0"
when you commit the file's first revision; if you forget, the
file will be created at revision 1.1.

Once that happens, your code will have some files with "2.x"
revisions, but other files with "1.x" -- the "2." prefix will be
*adding* to the confusion, not reducing it.

Much better to use tags, and stop expecting the revision numbers
to convey information meaningful to humans.


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
Anyone who swims with the current will reach the big music steamship;
whoever swims against the current will perhaps reach the source.
        - Paul Schneider-Esleben

reply via email to

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