Re: import inconsistency

[Derek Robert Price]

Paul Edwards wrote:

> I've had a potential brainwave.  If an import, which is a actually
> just another branch except you don't need to add things one at a
> time, creates an active head, why shouldn't adding on a branch
> create an active head too?
>
> Both places I have worked where we developed on branches,
> both had scripts that would rename the "Tag" in order to get
> files added to the head, then put on the branch.
>
> Should CVS simply be changed so that adding on branches is
> treated the same way as imports, ie it creates BOTH the head
> and the branch, both active?  This would have the effect of
> fixing that inconsistency and moving it out of the Attic at the
> same time.
>  

_NO_!  Adding to a branch does not create an active head.  A branch is 
separate from the head by definition.  Vendor branches are simply a 
special sort of branch that mean to act as a "base", for lack of a 
better word, of the head, unless a file has already been committed to 
the head by a user.  Thus the problem when a revision exists on the 
head, dead or not, requiring a merge.

The case when there have been commits to the head before any import, 
when the import then conflicts, was never considered from the start and 
will need some planning and reworking of the code.

Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: derek@ximbiot.com

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
And what if you track down these men and kill them?  What if you murdered all
of us?  From every corner of Europe hundreds, thousands, would rise to take our
places.

                - Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo, _Casablanca_