Re: killing a branch

[David Everly]

Yes, this might work...I was also thinking maybe read/write locks for
branches, just in case the branches ever needed to be 're-activated'.

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 04:22:58PM -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:18:23PM -0600, David Everly wrote:
> > After I merge a branch into the trunk, I would like to make it so that
> > people cannot commit to the branch anymore.  Would someone please suggest
> > a good way of doing this?
> 
> Would it suffice to "cvs rm" everything on the branch, so that
> when someone goes "cvs update -rbranch", they get nothing?
> 
> That wouldn't *prevent* someone from committing to the branch,
> but it'd give them a pretty strong hint that doing so isn't what
> they really want...
> 
> --
> 
> |  | /\
> |-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
> |  |  /
> The world has been attacked.  The world must respond ... [but] we must
> be guided by a commitment to do what works in the long run, not by what
> makes us feel better in the short run.
>       - Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
> 

-- 
address@hidden
V-Net:       622-3286
Phone: 1-719-535-3286
Pager: 1-800-724-3624 # 140-1311