[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Tag locking change

From: Mark
Subject: Re: Tag locking change
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:37:06 -0700 (PDT)

--- "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> wrote:
> [ On Monday, October 7, 2002 at 12:39:29 (-0400), Larry Jones wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Tag locking change
> >
> > Paul Sander writes:
> > > 
> > > Another serious issue is when someone commits while an rtag is in
> > > progress, and the new data are erroneously tagged.
> > 
> > Anyone who does an rtag without specifying an explicit revision to tag
> > gets exactly what they deserve.
> This part I sort of agree with, though strictly to say such a thing
> you'd have to force them to never tag against the head of a branch with
> rtag.

If one wants to tag the latest on a branch, why should one have to create a
workarea to do it? I have perl baseline script that automates tagging, one of
the options is tagging the latest on a given branch. The script utilizes
rtag,rdiff,rlog to get its job done, without creating a workarea.

I say forgo efficiency for robustness and have rtag lock the entire repo. It
looks like a delay versus unintended results sinario.

If rtag can have an implicit timestamp (rtag without a -D option) of command
invocation (mentioned in a previous post) when given a branch tag for the -r
option to rtag, then it wouldn't matter which way the rtag locking worked.


Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More

reply via email to

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