[cvsnt] Re: Renaming Branch Tags

[Tony Hoyle]

David Hauck wrote:
> This suggests that the 2.0.58d client to 2.0.58d server inability in this
> regard is unique from the 2.5.01 failure. Any more ideas on why the local
> 2.0.58d-only case doesn't work correctly?

No idea...  I tend to keep 2.0.58d only as a source reference these days 
rather than a compiled binaries.  It looks like it's doing the same 
things as 2.5.01 though.

Try adding -b to the command line as well.. 2.5.01 doesn't need this but 
I'm not certain how 2.0.58 handled it.

cvs -q -d f:\r\cvs\repository rtag -Ab -r V1_1_BRANCH V1_1_BRANCH_OLD
mymodule

> (I'm still holding out hope that I can use 2.0.58d only, since 2.5.01 is
> still pre-release. We're very paranoid, perhaps unreasonably, about this
> sort of thing.)

That's understandable.

Tony