Re: Branches in CVS repository?

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

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.