Re: branch tags

[Eric Siegerman]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 05:01:46PM +1000, Matthew Herrmann wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> When I began CVS for a project I am working on, I accidentally tagged our
> beginning code with a branch tag ROT_4_4_1.
> [long story about the attempt to recover]

Please post the output of "cvs log" from a representative file or
two.  That'll help us to understand the current state of things.

Best would be to use a file that gives you spurious diffs.  Also
include the exact "cvs diff" command you use, the revisions you
expect it to operate on, and the revisions it actually operates
on.

(You can edit out the commit messages if they're confidential,
but be sure to include the CVS-generated "revision" and "date:"
lines for each revision.)

> I then discovered that it was
> better to tag with a 'non-sticky' tag, then tag again with a branch tag to
> allow concurrent development.

There's no distinction between sticky and non-sticky tags.
Stickiness isn't an attribute of the tag itself, but of the
sandbox when you use
        cvs {update|checkout} -r<tag-name>

That people (and the program itself) often refer to "sticky tags"
is admittedly misleading; the phrase is shorthand for something
like "a sticky revision in a sandbox, when what it's stuck to is
a tag name" (i.e. as opposed to a date).

--

|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
        - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)