CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

[ gcc-patches -> gcc ]

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Michael Matz wrote:
> I just committed the result of merging HEAD at tag ra-merge-20031009 with
> this branch.

Is there any reason y'all need to add tags to mainline for such merges,
or could you simply use the -D2003-10-10 option of CVS as well?

I'm asking because there have been concerns about CVS being cluttered
with numerous tags, and indeed we currently have about 20 tags per month
(even though I hacked the snapshot script to avoid tags for snapshots
from mainline, thus saving 4 tags a month.)

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:

| [ gcc-patches -> gcc ]
| 
| On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Michael Matz wrote:
| > I just committed the result of merging HEAD at tag ra-merge-20031009 with
| > this branch.
| 
| Is there any reason y'all need to add tags to mainline for such merges,
| or could you simply use the -D2003-10-10 option of CVS as well?

It think it is essentially for convenience in merging.
If you add a tag, you don't need to remember exactly the date + hour
-- and the hour can vary from one country to the other.
Also, I dot seem to recall that merging between two points works with
anything other than revision numbers, tags or branch points.   

-- Gaby

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> Is there any reason y'all need to add tags to mainline for such merges,
>> or could you simply use the -D2003-10-10 option of CVS as well?
> It think it is essentially for convenience in merging.
> If you add a tag, you don't need to remember exactly the date + hour

So? Add the value of the -D tag to the ChangeLog on the branch, for
example (or, as tree-ssa folks do it, to the version string on the
branch).

> -- and the hour can vary from one country to the other.

You don't need hours; just use the day.  And if you use hours, these
will be GMT anyways.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >> Is there any reason y'all need to add tags to mainline for such merges,
> >> or could you simply use the -D2003-10-10 option of CVS as well?
> > It think it is essentially for convenience in merging.
> > If you add a tag, you don't need to remember exactly the date + hour
>
> So? Add the value of the -D tag to the ChangeLog on the branch, for
> example (or, as tree-ssa folks do it, to the version string on the
> branch).

IIRC, if you merge against anything other than a tag you'll lose
track of removed files.  (I hope to be corrected.)

brgds, H-P

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> IIRC, if you merge against anything other than a tag you'll lose
> track of removed files.  (I hope to be corrected.)

Hmm, if that's indeed the case, we could avoid the "exploding number
of tags" syndrome by keeping a _moving_ tag for such merges, much like
the gcc_latest_snapshot tag we used to have:

  # Lay down temporary tag and do the merge.
  cvs tag ra-merge-tmp
  cvs diff -r ra-merge -r ra-merge-tmp
  # Replace temporary tag by merge tag...
  cvs tag -f -r ra-merge-tmp ra-merge
  # ...and remove temporary tag.
  cvs tag -d ra-merge-tmp

If the tag is really only to be used for tagging something like that
should be sufficient, shouldn't it?

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: CVS tags

[Andreas Schwab]

Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> IIRC, if you merge against anything other than a tag you'll lose
>> track of removed files.  (I hope to be corrected.)
>
> Hmm, if that's indeed the case, we could avoid the "exploding number
> of tags" syndrome by keeping a _moving_ tag for such merges, much like
> the gcc_latest_snapshot tag we used to have:

We could also just get rid of old merge tags from time to time.  That has
the advantage that we still can keep a few merge tags for testing purpose.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: CVS tags

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> >> IIRC, if you merge against anything other than a tag you'll lose
> >> track of removed files.  (I hope to be corrected.)
> >
> > Hmm, if that's indeed the case, we could avoid the "exploding number
> > of tags" syndrome by keeping a _moving_ tag for such merges, much like
> > the gcc_latest_snapshot tag we used to have:
>
> We could also just get rid of old merge tags from time to time.  That has
> the advantage that we still can keep a few merge tags for testing purpose.

FWIW, that seems better than a moving tag: you can then rely on
the tag being stable; it might be gone but it doesn't suddenly
change contents (for various values of "sudden").

brgds, H-P

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Mike Stump]

On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 02:10 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
>
> | [ gcc-patches -> gcc ]
> |
> | On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Michael Matz wrote:
> | > I just committed the result of merging HEAD at tag 
> ra-merge-20031009 with
> | > this branch.
> |
> | Is there any reason y'all need to add tags to mainline for such 
> merges,
> | or could you simply use the -D2003-10-10 option of CVS as well?
>
> It think it is essentially for convenience in merging.
> If you add a tag, you don't need to remember exactly the date + hour
> -- and the hour can vary from one country to the other.
> Also, I dot seem to recall that merging between two points works with
> anything other than revision numbers, tags or branch points.

Consulting the log file for ChangeLog (or any fast moving file, maybe 
version.c) and getting the full date is as trivial as examining said 
log for the tag that was merged in.  If one writes it down instead of 
consulting the log file, one can just as easily write down the full 
date (of course, using Z or GMT time).  Anybody that does this be 
memory, well, they have a really good memory and surely the full date 
isn't any more difficult for them.

Also, dated merges from named branches works just fine.  What doesn't 
work is that the main branch (mainline) doesn't have a name, so no 
merging from it.(?)

The above comments only relate to the -j option, for other options, the 
combo doesn't work.  :-(

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:

| Also, dated merges from named branches works just fine.  What doesn't
| work is that the main branch (mainline) doesn't have a name, so no
| merging from it.(?)

I don't understand this. Merge from mainline is done with -jHEAD.

| The above comments only relate to the -j option, for other options,
| the combo doesn't work.  :-(

-- Gaby

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Mike Stump]

On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 12:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com> writes:
>
> | Also, dated merges from named branches works just fine.  What doesn't
> | work is that the main branch (mainline) doesn't have a name, so no
> | merging from it.(?)
>
> I don't understand this. Merge from mainline is done with -jHEAD.

You forgot the date, try adding it, then you will understand.

Re: CVS tags

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 02:06:21PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
>> > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> >> IIRC, if you merge against anything other than a tag you'll lose
>> >> track of removed files.  (I hope to be corrected.)
>> >
>> > Hmm, if that's indeed the case, we could avoid the "exploding number
>> > of tags" syndrome by keeping a _moving_ tag for such merges, much like
>> > the gcc_latest_snapshot tag we used to have:
>>
>> We could also just get rid of old merge tags from time to time.  That has
>> the advantage that we still can keep a few merge tags for testing purpose.
>
>FWIW, that seems better than a moving tag: you can then rely on
>the tag being stable; it might be gone but it doesn't suddenly
>change contents (for various values of "sudden").

The last time I suggested deleting tags there was an objection, IIRC.
Something about losing valuable data for future software historians,
I think...

I think that cleaning up the old tags is a great idea, though.  Just
don't do it to branch tags or you leave orphaned revisions in the cvs
file.

cgf

Re: CVS tags (was: [new-ra] merge with head)

[Ben Elliston]

Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:

> I'm asking because there have been concerns about CVS being
> cluttered with numerous tags, and indeed we currently have about 20
> tags per month (even though I hacked the snapshot script to avoid
> tags for snapshots from mainline, thus saving 4 tags a month.)

What is the precise concern about the number of tags?  I recently put
`log -N' into ~/.cvsrc and my own concerns went away ..

Ben

Re: CVS tags

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I think that cleaning up the old tags is a great idea, though.  Just
> don't do it to branch tags or you leave orphaned revisions in the cvs
> file.

Well, perhaps we can just do it for merge tags (and encourage branch
maintainers to do it at their leisure.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Ben Elliston wrote:
> What is the precise concern about the number of tags?  I recently put
> `log -N' into ~/.cvsrc and my own concerns went away ..

Some that contacted me, as web pages guy, mentioned web interfaces into
our CVS tree, for example.

Gerald