This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Creating a tag
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 19 Jun 2002 13:21:22 -0700
- Subject: Re: Creating a tag
- References: <120100000.1024515506@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> > > cvs server: [09:08:08] waiting for sje's lock in /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc
> > > cvs server: [09:15:39] waiting for anoncvs's lock in /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc
> > > cvs server: [10:27:37] waiting for rth's lock in /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc
> > > cvs server: [10:41:30] waiting for anoncvs's lock in /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc
> > > cvs server: [10:45:01] waiting for rth's lock in /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc
>
> > Presumably there were other directories interlaced with these?
>
> Right.
That would be a CVS inefficiency. 'cvs tag' can be done one directory
at a time. I think 'cvs rtag' does work one directory at a time,
which is odd because it _does_ actually need to be done atomically to
be sure of tagging a consistent tree.
> I'm not sure there's anything we can do, other than the faster machine.
>
> I certainly don't expect anybody to rush around fixing CVS on my account!
>
> (I had hoped that I was doing something idiotic, and that by manipulating
> CVS more intelligently I could have made progress more quickly, but it
> sounds like the system, and not I, is to blame.)
You can always manually tag one directory at a time, using the '-l'
flag. It'd probably be pretty easy to fix CVS, too.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>