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.
Tony Hoyle wrote: > > Hmm, does that really make sense? So far I have been thinking that > > HEAD was a tag instead of a branch, i.e. that it refered to a > > particular revision, namely the tip of the default branch, i.e. not > > necessarily the trunk - the default branch could be changed with > > cvs admin -b. > > There's no other way to explicitly state that you don't want to use a > branch. Yes, I'm aware of that. I would have proposed to use TRUNK:date for that instead... as AFAICT, HEAD usually isn't guaranteed to return the trunk because of cvs admin -b. > I've always thought of HEAD as a branch (as you can commit to it). You could not commit to HEAD if you make it sticky. It definitely looks like a tag to me. > > Wouldn't it be more consistent to introduce a new reserved symbolic > > name TRUNK or something like that for this purpose? > > That would be a lot of work I suspect I think it would be worth it to disambiguate some situations... > - HEAD is treated specially in lots of small routines in the code. And it is treated as a branch there? Or even explicitly as the trunk (as opposed to the default branch)? Cheers, -- Oliver ---- ------------------ JID: ogiesen at jabber.org ICQ: 18777742 (http://wwp.icq.com/18777742)