[cvsnt] Re: Latest Updates

[Oliver Giesen]

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)