From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-37303-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 31941 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2005 17:39:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 31849 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2005 17:39:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Jan 2005 17:39:17 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0KHdHbO001719
	for <binutils@sources.redhat.com>; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:39:17 -0500
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-160.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.160])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j0KHdFO04513;
	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:39:15 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEB77D79;
	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:39:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <41EFECB7.6030602@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:39:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
        DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>, binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Branches in CVS repository?
References: <200501150003.j0F03Wka006774@sirius.codesourcery.com>	 <m3y8evcuf6.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <41EB9645.4040409@redhat.com>	 <41EBEACC.3010001@codesourcery.com> <jeekgkyp3r.fsf@sykes.suse.de>	 <41EBEE05.8000105@codesourcery.com> <jeacr8yoau.fsf@sykes.suse.de>	 <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> <1106217737.11699.6.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1106217737.11699.6.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2

Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 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. 
>>Andrew
> 
> 
> I'll say it again.  I really, *really*, hate dates in this context. 

to which I wrote:

 >> 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.

have a nice day,
Andrew