This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 02:10 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer <> writes:

| [ gcc-patches -> gcc ]
| On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Michael Matz wrote:
| > I just committed the result of merging HEAD at tag ra-merge-20031009 with
| > this branch.
| Is there any reason y'all need to add tags to mainline for such merges,
| or could you simply use the -D2003-10-10 option of CVS as well?

It think it is essentially for convenience in merging.
If you add a tag, you don't need to remember exactly the date + hour
-- and the hour can vary from one country to the other.
Also, I dot seem to recall that merging between two points works with
anything other than revision numbers, tags or branch points.

Consulting the log file for ChangeLog (or any fast moving file, maybe version.c) and getting the full date is as trivial as examining said log for the tag that was merged in. If one writes it down instead of consulting the log file, one can just as easily write down the full date (of course, using Z or GMT time). Anybody that does this be memory, well, they have a really good memory and surely the full date isn't any more difficult for them.

Also, dated merges from named branches works just fine. What doesn't work is that the main branch (mainline) doesn't have a name, so no merging from it.(?)

The above comments only relate to the -j option, for other options, the combo doesn't work. :-(

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]