From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5489 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2005 10:46:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5385 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2005 10:46:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Jan 2005 10:46:17 -0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0KAfC4m016530; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:41:12 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j0KAgKrg008918; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:42:20 GMT Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id j0KAgIEH008916; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:42:18 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha set sender to rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org using -f Subject: Re: Branches in CVS repository? From: Richard Earnshaw To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Nick Clifton , Mark Mitchell , DJ Delorie , binutils@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <41EEC2DA.6050804@gnu.org> References: <200501150003.j0F03Wka006774@sirius.codesourcery.com> <41EB9645.4040409@redhat.com> <41EBEACC.3010001@codesourcery.com> <41EBEE05.8000105@codesourcery.com> <41EBF2F9.6030302@codesourcery.com> <200501171743.j0HHhDPh017758@greed.delorie.com> <41EBFAFF.7050205@codesourcery.com> <41ECDA84.1030605@redhat.com> <41EDF572.20705@codesourcery.com> <41EE3125.6030301@redhat.com> <41EE816F.8040309@codesourcery.com> <41EE8694.3070008@redhat.com> <41EEC2DA.6050804@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: GNU Message-Id: <1106217737.11699.6.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:46:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00291.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 20:28, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Fair enough - if I am the only one who thinks that these dates would be > > helpful then I am not going to insist on them. > > Yes, agreed, the date is very helpful (it should be YYYYMMDD). It's > especially helpful when identifying exact branch and merge points - the > nature of cvs is such that "cvs log" is not exact. Besides, there's > nothing to stop the person cutting the branch from using "cvs admin" to > create a shorter alias for the currently active longer tag. > > Andrew I'll say it again. I really, *really*, hate dates in this context. I've found that when working with CVS on branches you have to use the branch tag name with every update (or -dP doesn't work properly) and since I'm not an historian I can never remember them! If you really want some additional meta-info here, then require a 'project name'. Then Redhat folks can name their projects based on the date they started, if they so desire. The rest of us can use more memorable things, like 'gadfly' or 'wombat' or ... Dates of branches should probably appear in the documentation for the branch, but it doesn't IMO belong in the TAG name. R.