Re: Updating file versions from 1.x to 2.x

[Cameron, Steve]

Michael Bailey wrote: 
>
> I've been asked to update file versions for all files on a branch to 2.0
> Although I realise this is not the cvs way, would it be A Bad Thing?
> 

In short, yes, it's a bad thing in my opinion.  it will only cause 
confusion without providing any real benefits that are not better 
provided by symbolic tags.

> If not, is there an easy way to increment the versions of all files on a 
> branch to be 2.0?
>
Not advised, though the manual has this to say, if you are hell-bent on
doing it.
http://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs_4.html#SEC47

I wrote a patch for CVS which contains (along with a bunch of other stuff)
this change to the cvs.texinfo:

! (@pxref{Tags}).  
! 
! In fact, let's just go ahead and say right now that you are 
! STRONGLY advised against using @samp{cvs commit -r}
! to manually set revision numbers.  It is STRONGLY recommended that
! you just allow CVS to assign revision numbers however it likes.
! You should use tags instead of trying to assign some meaning to 
! revision numbers.
! 
! However, if, with that caution in mind, you still want to set the
  numeric revisions, the @samp{-r} option to @code{cvs
  commit} can do that.  The @samp{-r} option implies the
  @samp{-f} option, in the sense that it causes the