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.
Rick Genter wrote: >> >>Tags? You're joking, right? > > > Yes and no. For the scenario cited (code review), I've found that > usually a code review is a planned event and not intended to be > performed on an arbitrary revision of code. In fact, in code review > scenarios I've been in, we've usually wanted to review the code that > went into a particular QA build, for example, for which a tag does > exist. > Good point. I do the same in that scenario. > >>Why in the heck would I want to tag every single incremental revision > > of > >>a file when the automatically assigned revision number is a perfectly >>valid way of doing so? > > > I have no problem with using an automatically assigned revision number. > What started this thread was someone wanting to override the > automatically assigned revision number. That's something that I (and the > CVSNT developers) have a problem with. If you want something other than > the automatically assigned revision number, use a tag. > I agree with you - strongly, in fact: the ability to force revision numbers would make it very difficult for me to justify the use of CVS or CVSNT for FAA work. I just thought for a moment you were proposing that any access to a non-head revision would need a tag, and that didn't seem sensible. Again, though, I'm worried that any new internal revision identification mechanism might lose the inherent chronological implications of the current numerical system. j.