[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: commiting a sticky file

From: sparkylee
Subject: Re: commiting a sticky file
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Jul 28, 6:59 am, "Risman, Mark" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Lee,
> It looks like your RCP_5_0_1 branch is indeed off of RCP_5_0 tag. If you
> look at the output from your "status" command (or a "log" command if you
> were to look at that), notice where it says "branch: 1.103.2" next to
> the branch name "RCP_5_0_1". The "1.103" in that spot means that the
> branch is off of the RCP_5_0 tag, which currently points to 1.103.

> If you look at RCP_5_0_2, you'll see "1.103..." there too; this is also
> a branch from the same place.
?? RCP_5_0_2 looks like a revision off the RCP_5_0_2 branch to me.

> Also note that "RCP_5_0" is indeed a tag, but not a trunk.
it is supposed to be the trunk.

>CVS will
> allow that tag to be moved to any other revision, if someone were to
> tell it so. The branch is always off of a specific revision, not tag, so
> these branches will be off of 1.103, regardless of what happens to the
> RCP_5_0 tag.
for this file. i understand CVS creates the branch off each revision
number for each file,
of which there are over 700 in this case.

> For more information on how to interpret those revision numbers, please
> see You can
> change that URL to match the cvs version you have.
i think i finally understand the revision numbers.

if you'll bear with me, let me summarize what the intended branching
philosophy here is.

development of RCP proceeded linearly up to RCP_5_0, primarily for a
platform we'll call A.
This was stable, tagged and released.

Subsequently,  development was continued primarily for a different
platform B and it diverged
from the platform A code.   so then RCP_6_0 was released. it is hard
to say what the main trunk should be: platform A or B. nevertheless
RCP_6_0 is the trunk, right or wrong.

meanwhile a bug was found in RCP_5_0. so a branch was created called
RCP_5_0_1.  badly named i think. the fix was put in and tagged by the
name, RCP_5_0_1.  bad idea. there were a few other changes and
RCP_5_0_2 was tagged. so there should be this fixit branch which will
have subsequent tags.

i'm really confused about whether this is a good strategy.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
> sparkylee
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 6:40 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: commiting a sticky file
> i do have an RCP_5_0_1 branch. i can check out, edit and commit.
> apparently i do NOT have an RCP_5_0_2 branch. so when i check THAT
> out, i can't commit changes.
> status on a typical file shows:
> []:/cygdrive/c/lees/dev/rcp502/rcp/src/rcp/rus: cvs status -v
> | less
> ===================================================================
> File:          Status: Up-to-date
>    Working revision:
>    Repository revision:       /home/cvs/repository/rcp/src/
> rcp/rus/,v
>    Commit Identifier:   O6D7s2oDTzFTDPUt
>    Sticky Tag:          RCP_5_0_2 (revision:
>    Sticky Date:         (none)
>    Sticky Options:      (none)
>    Existing Tags:
>         RCP_5_0_2                       (revision:
>         RCP_5_0_1                       (branch: 1.103.2)
>         RCP_6_0_CVN                     (revision: 1.104)
>         RCP_5_0                         (revision: 1.103)
>         RCP_4_9_2                       (revision: 1.102)
>         RCP_4_9_1                       (revision: 1.101)
>         RCP_4_9_0                       (revision: 1.100)
>         ....
> the intention was to branch RCP_5_x off of the RCP_5_0 trunk.
> i wonder how i can fix this?
> lee
> **********************************************************
> Where Baseball is Always On- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

reply via email to

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