Re: cvs tag: some slightly counterintuitive behaviour

[Andy Jones]

Jason Carucci>>>
>No, I believe cvs will tag the files in the repository, the files in your
>working directory are irrelevant for this operation.

I'm not saying that CVS behaved wrongly, just in a way that was 
counterintuitive.  To say that cvs tag requires a working directory, but not 
the files in it, is surely that.

Derek Price>>>
>`cvs tag' is defined to tag the BASE revisions of the files in the
>working directory and this is exactly the behavior you are describing.
>[...]
>Therefore, I would argue that this sort of behavior is simply too much
>to expect from CVS.

Maybe it is.  The point I am making is, it surprised me.  Here is what the 
manual says:

     "tag [options] tag [files…]
          Add a symbolic tag to checked out version of files...."

Now I've *seen* this particular little gotcha, on re-reading the above I can 
see that CVS is behaving as advertised.  But I think it is fair to say that 
anyone reading it who had not had this happen to them, might get the wrong 
idea, as I did.

Derek Price>>>
>The work-around, and a pretty straight-forward one I should think, is to
>commit your changes before tagging.

No, no.  I don't want to remove the files.  I just want to not tag them.  Now 
it looks like I will have to tag the whole sandbox and then untag a list of 
about 30 files - not fun.

Is it really a pain to change (assuming it should be changed)?  Modified files 
shouldn't be a problem - just ignore them, as now.  Anyone who doesn't like 
this behaviour should be doing cvs tag -c anyway...

Of course, the simplest fix is to add a couple of lines to the manual.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a major gripe.  I just wanted to flag a small 
bit of odd behaviour.  

Andy.