From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26899 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2002 20:07:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26892 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 20:07:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 20:07:51 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JJoWi31223 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 15:50:32 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JK7mx22342; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:07:49 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (IDENT:ArydHCd0gIJC/1J2YOVX/e+8Ulw9KMVs@romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JK7lC22478; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:07:47 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8JK7kX22300; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:07:46 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:07:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020919200745.ZM22299@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: David Carlton "Re: branching" (Sep 19, 12:35pm) References: <20020917143553.GA28408@nevyn.them.org> <20020917174928.GA23058@nevyn.them.org> <3D87815A.4010807@ges.redhat.com> <1020919193025.ZM22088@localhost.localdomain> To: David Carlton Subject: Re: branching Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 On Sep 19, 12:35pm, David Carlton wrote: > > Maybe I'm being naive, but why can't you just checkout your branch, > > and then do: > > > cvs update -j HEAD > > Ah: maybe that's part of the answer: maybe I should do > > cvs update -j carlton-dictionary-YYYYMMDD-tag -j HEAD > > (I'd missed the keyword HEAD.) > > Section 5.7 of the CVS manual suggests that what you say isn't a good > idea, because it claims that CVS will try to merge in all changes to > head since the original branch, rather than all changes since I last > merged. I see. That sounds right. > If that's accurate, I need to get tags on the head somehow so > that it doesn't try to merge in changes twice. Maybe just keep track of the date of the last merge and do: cvs update -j HEAD:date -j HEAD Another approach might be to use the -F option with ``cvs tag'' so that you only need one merge tag (for your branch) on the mainline. (If you try the -j HEAD:date approach, let me know how it works...) Kevin