Re: Tag locking change

[Adam Bregenzer]

I can think of specific examples where testing, etc. may not happen in a
'working copy' of the code.  For example, one of the projects I am using
cvs for is a website.  I have a script in cvs that, upon checkin, copies
the file over to a directory so that the 'current' cvs version of the
site can be immediately tested.  There is not branching in the code or
anything fancy so I currently use rtag to tag the head of the branch
when we decide it is ready.  While this is a very limited case and there
are few enough developers that I can still run rtag and tell everybody
to not checkin anything for a minute.  Also, it can be convienent to use
rtag if cvs is integrated with other tools.  One thing I think this
shows is that cvs is a tool for developers, by developers, which may not
work in every instance.


On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 02:15, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 22:32:18 (-0700), Mike Ayers wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Tag locking change
> >
> > Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > 
> > > If you really Really REALLY want to tag the head of a branch then just
> > > check out the branch (or do a "cvs update" in any existing working
> > > directory which has no un-committed changes) then then apply the tag to
> > > what you get as a result by running "cvs tag" in that working directory.
> > > That way you can know ahead of time exactly what you've got.  It's then
> > > up to the user whether or not they actually look to see what's there
> > > before they tag it.
> > 
> >     What I fail to understand is why anyone would want to tag the head of 
> > a branch in an instantaneous fashion.
> 
> Me too!  :-)
> 
> >  Wouldn't you want to 
> > build/test, etc. first?
> 
> Well, in theory you could check out a working directory with the new tag
> and test it then, and you could adjust the tagged revision in any files
> where some unexpected change had in fact crept in.
> 
> It does seem like the wrong way to go about things though especially
> when you can just update a working directory and then be certain that
> what you tag is correct in the first place.
> 
> >     I'm kind of lost on what the point of contention is here.  What is it 
> > that someone would want to do that is affected by the tag locking 
> > change?  Could someone please clarify?
> 
> I think the issue is some of us don't want 'cvs rtag' to "work" when the
> intent is to tag the head of a branch, especially not with the new more
> per-directory-only locking scheme it will use to work faster and to
> cause less contention (i.e. it should give a usage error).  Other people
> seem to think that indeed it should be possible to tag the head of a
> branch with 'cvs rtag'.
> 
> Indeed silly tricks could still be done with the likes of specifying a
> time only one second prior to the current time.  Of course the very idea
> of using timestamps is open to question as well since unless you have
> some external way to ensure the repository is quiescent for a decent
> window of time you still can't know what you're tagging.
> 
> CVS just gives users far too much rope for many tasks.
> 
> -- 
>                                                               Greg A. Woods
> 
> +1 416 218-0098;            <address@hidden>;           <address@hidden>
> Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs