Re: Major revision number compatibility?

[Thomas Eliassson]

I've tried it out, it DOES work the way I described.
At least when I do it the straight forward way using WinCVS 1.2
accessing our CVS server 1.11 on Solaris.
According to Cederqvist it's not supposed to work that way though.
There seem to be a lack of standard conformance in either WinCVS or 
Solaris CVS (which one is setting rev no?).

I guess it will work fine for us anyhow, since we don't need to bother 
about revision numbers now that we're using CVS, and pre-CVS files will 
still be possible to trace using the revision numbers.

/Thomas

> Subject: Re: Major revision number compatibility?
> To: address@hidden (Thomas Eliassson)
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:43:27 -0500 (EST)
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: address@hidden (Larry Jones)
>
> Thomas Eliassson writes:
> > This also means that it's perfectly ok (even preferred) for new files to 
> > be numbered with 1.1, as long as I can still track files from before we 
> > had CVS. I also checked that this is the way it works (at least with our 
> > CVS setup), so if one file in the directory has rev. 2.6, a newly added 
> > file will have rev.no. 1.1.
>
> No, that isn't the way it works.  If the highest existing rev. no. in
> the directory is 2.6, a newly added file will have rev. 2.1.
>
> -Larry Jones



--
Personal reply?
Remove .qb in mail address (spam blocker).