RE: Branching bug ??? (was Re: Bug is tagging the head of a branchhead???)

[Donald Sharp \(sharpd\)]

I'm confused, My understanding is that Rational( or IBM ) recommends a
sparse branching methodology.  This methodology is the same one used in
cvs.  So the question becomes how are you doing your branching in
clearcase, and what do you consider it's benefits over this methodology?
I'm at a loss currently to explain why I'd want to create /0 versions
before I needed to on a branch( it forces merges that don't have to
happen ).

donald

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:29 PM
To: address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: RE: Branching bug ??? (was Re: Bug is tagging the head of a
branchhead???)


> I don't think it's either, I think you're suffering from a fundamental
misconception 
> of some sort about how branches work, but I'm not sure exactly what it
is.

Your explanation (and Larry's now) makes sense, but I wish CVS didn't do
this...

My problem is I'm trying to use CVS like ClearCase, which is clearly
not, nor does it even start to pretend to be. So to "physically," and
not just conceptually accomplish what I want to do, I'll have to somehow
make CVS "think" that I've modified the files on my first branch
"before" I make the second branch. I'll give this a shot...

...or think of another way to accomplish what I want to do, which is to
have a 
development branch, and then individuals' development branches off the
development branch.

-chris

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:07 PM
To: Fouts Christopher (); address@hidden
Subject: RE: Branching bug ??? (was Re: Bug is tagging the head of a
branch head???)


address@hidden writes:
>
> So I ask again, is this a bug in v1.11.14, or is it user error. If 
> user error, how can I achieve my desired results, where b_dev_01_03 is

> off the trunk, and b_dev_01_03_cf branch off b_dev_01_03 branch?

I don't think it's either, I think you're suffering from a fundamental
misconception of some sort about how branches work, but I'm not sure
exactly what it is.  Your b_dev_01_03_cf branch *is* off the b_dev_01_03
branch conceptually, you just can't tell that from the revision numbers
because you didn't commit any changes to the first branch before
creating the second branch.  When you created the second branch, the
file on the first branch was still identical to the file on the trunk,
so the branch was physically rooted on the trunk.  If you think of a
real tree, there's isn't any way to distinguish between a branch that
springs off another branch right where that branch attaches to the trunk
and a branch that comes off the trunk at the same spot.

-chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Jones [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:52 AM
To: Fouts Christopher ()
Cc: 'address@hidden'
Subject: Re: Bug is tagging the head of a branch head???


"Fouts Christopher ()" writes:
> 
> If I want to tag the head of a newly created branch (with no work 
> committed to it yet), I just do a
> 
>       > cvs rtag -r b_dev_01_02 t_pre_dev_01_02_xx sample
> 
> correct?

Correct.

> Now when I do a checkout of the tagged files,
...
> and do a cvs status -v on one of the files, it shows the tag sticking 
> to the HEAD revision, NOT the branch head revision.

Also correct.

> Is this a bug???

No, it's an optimization.  CVS doesn't really create a branch in the RCS
file until you commit changes on the branch.  So, until you actually
commit changes on the branch, the head of the branch is the revision you
branched from.

-Larry Jones

Mom must've put my cape in the wrong drawer. -- Calvin


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .




_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs