On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:54:53PM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> I have a project in CVS that I created a branch of a while ago called
> 'unstable'. Since then that branch has been merged back into the main
> tree. It still shows up in the repository but I'm assuming this is
> correct behavior. (I have to admit I'm quite new to CVS myself.)
yes; that's normal and correct behavior
> Now I am going to do some more dramatic changes to the code, and I would
> like to re-branch 'unstable' again. That is, bring unstable up to speed
> with the current head, and then do future changes in unstable in
> preparation for a merge at some point. The problem is that every time
> I've tried to do this, 'unstable' does not get updated. It is still
> showing the same file versions as were there when it was merged.
That's a quite unusual way of doing things: Naming a branch "unstable"
or some other "re-usuable" name is imho bad practice. Keep your branch
names related to the *functionality* you're trying to implement on the
branch - e.g. name it "GoFasterStripes".
The idea is that once your change has reached a stable state you can
merge the branch into the main trunc and forget about the branch. If you
want to add another feature, then you branch again (Say hello to
"EngineThatWorks". yes: a marketing-driven organisation...)
By re-using the same branch name, you're effectively reviving a
(otherwise) dead branch. This can be somewhat confusing...
I presume that you've studied the books? :
http://cvsbook.red-bean.com/cvsbook.html
iirc there's a debian package for that book too...
> So is what I'm suggesting possible, and if so, how? (And if anyone here
> uses Eclipse to interact with CVS, directions on doing it in Eclipse
> would be much appreciated as that is currently my primary means of
> dealing with the repository.)
>
> p.s. Since I'm sure someone will mention it (I know I would :) ), yes,
> there are better things than CVS out there. Subversion and Arch come to
> mind here. But at the moment work has me locked into CVS. (Maybe once
> the SVN interface for Eclipse has matured a bit I can propose it, but
> for now it's strictly CVS.)
CVS isn't too bad - it is arguable the very best bang-for-the-buck you
can hope to get!
--
Karl E. Jørgensen
karl@jorgensen.com http://karl.jorgensen.com
==== Today's fortune:
Forced to support NT servers; sysadmins quit.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature