Re: adding on branch

[Paul Edwards]

"Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@cvshome.org> wrote in message 
news:mailman.7041.1054280546.21513.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> I think this ends up doing the right thing most of the time as the
> RCS engine should be able to reconstruct version 1.1.1.1 correctly,
> but the above violates some assumptions about version 1.1.1.1 that
> may be used by others somewhere:
>
>     The timestamp of 1.1 and 1.1.1.1 will no longer be the same,
>     nor will the author or state attributes.
>
>     The delta for 1.1.1.1 will no longer be empty.
>
>     The symbolic tags for vendor branch and vender version will
>     no longer be in the same relative position of the file (last).
>
>     The execute permissions on the RCS file will no longer be that
>     of the imported file, but instead of whatever happened to be
>     committed to the repository first.
>
>     The default keyword expansion flag may not be the same as the
>     between the pre-import and post-import versions.
>
> Have I missed anything?

I don't think these last two should be allowed to stand, as it
makes a visible change to the user.  I don't want a tinpot
branch to affect production import processing, that keyword
expansion in particular.

I actually created a "cvsadd" script to do a cvs add -ko because
programmers kept on forgetting to do that, and I don't want the
PVCS administrator to cotton on to the fact that CVS does the
same keyword substitution and ban me from using CVS.

The other thing that "cvsadd" does is rename Tag to Tagx and
do the commit so that it goes in as a head, and then tag it to what
Tag is, then do an update on the branch, so that production
imports, when they happen, don't look like exceptions.

BFN.  Paul.