[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: up-to-date check failed from a lower revision to higher revis ion
From: |
Jim.Hyslop |
Subject: |
RE: up-to-date check failed from a lower revision to higher revis ion |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:43:51 -0400 |
address@hidden wrote:
> Antony Paul <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I am new to CVS. I am using the cvs command line client
> in Linux. I have
> > one file whose status is as follows
> > cvs status: Examining .
> > ===================================================================
> > File: one.txt Status: Locally Modified
>
> > Working revision: 1.4.1.3 Sat Jul 10 08:53:39 2004
> > Repository revision: 1.4.1.3
> /home/cvsuser/cvsroot/work/base/one.txt,v
> > Sticky Tag: 1.4.1
> > Sticky Date: (none)
> > Sticky Options: (none)
>
> It is unconventional to have a numeric sticky tag ...
>
> > Existing Tags:
> > No Tags Exist
>
> ... and no symbolic tags. Anyway,
I'll go one step further: having no symbolic tags when working with branches
is plain wrong. Never use numeric revisions for branches. Always use
symbolic tags, and don't forget to apply a non-branch tag to the branch
point. Never *tell* CVS what revision number to use - let it figure out the
numbers.
Antony, getting back to your original question: Why do you want to specify
the numeric revision? What are you trying to accomplish?
--
Jim Hyslop
Senior Software Designer
Leitch Technology International Inc. (http://www.leitch.com)
Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com/experts)
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- RE: up-to-date check failed from a lower revision to higher revis ion,
Jim.Hyslop <=