Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
John Peacock wrote: > Excuse me? Are you saying you are going to make Revision numbers > completely useless, instead of mostly useless, by taking away the ability > to increment them > manually? Everyone will have large and useless revisions like 1.231 and > not be > able to bump them up to 2.0? What possible reason could you have for > breaking this behavior? Revision numbers are for the internal use of RCS. The only reason they're useful at all is for pinpointing individual revisions of a file. The should emphatically *never* be changed by an end user - if you don't know what you're doing you can create a situation where there are orphan branches which can't be retrieved using normal means. There is no practical use of changing them, unless you're trying to give them some kind of significance they don't have. Use tags - that's what they're there for. I'm moving over to a branch/revision notation for that eventually, after which point the current revision number scheme will only be exported for legacy support. That'll hopefully stop people thinkikng there's something special about the revision numbers. Tony