Re: URGENT: Initial revision number for CVS.

[Carsten Wich]

Hiho,

In article <address@hidden>, Shrikant Dhumal wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
>       Good Day !!
> 
>       I had a concern regarding initial revision number that is assigned while
> first import.
> [...]
>       Now, when I see the revision number for the text files they appear to 
> be as
> 1.1.1.1
>       (Note: Again, I need not bother now for the binary files. Am aware they
> should have been imported as binary type files)
>       Further I change few .cpp and .h files and "commit" them using
>       > cvs commit
> 
>       Now, when I see the revision number for the changed .cpp and .h files, 
> they
> are 1.2
>       (Note: To see the revision number I rely upon the Entries file created 
> in
> my local CVS folder or expansion of CVS keywords (like, $REVISION ) in the
> text files)
> 
>       Why is this so? What do I have to do if I want to start from 1.1 
> instead of
> 1.1.1.1
>       This is compulsory for me. I am not supposed to start from 1.1.1.1
> 
>       I have thought of a way to start the revision numbers from 1.1 but that
> doesnt seem to be elegant.
>       So, I am looking for an elegant way to do so. Might be when one imports 
> in
> to the CVS for the very first time.

I have a similar problem. At our company we have Sources that we want
to put under CVS control. Some of the sources are already RCS
controlled, so copying the *,v file directly into the repository seems
to be the right approach for us. The history is preserved and we get the
revision numbers that have been created by RCS (which all have the
syntax x.y, let's call this depth 2).

No, importing the other, non RCS-controlled sources has the same
effect that you describe. All files get the revision number 1.1.1.1.,
so the depth here is 4.

We really do not need the depth 4 revision numbers and want a default
revision number depth of 2. I have searched all the CVS manuals,
Google and other written resources, but found no answer to this
question.

Has anybody an answer that is other than "don't care about the CVS
revision numbers, use your own scheme with the use of tags" ?

Thanks, Carsten Wich