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

[Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>]

On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 02:10 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> 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.  :-(