[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Major revision number compatibility?

From: Thomas Eliassson
Subject: Re: Major revision number compatibility?
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:28:22 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120

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.


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 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).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]