Tor Arntsen <tor(a)spacetec.no> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
> On May 16, 3:08, SL Baur wrote:
>> O.K. Let's reverse the tags. Has anyone in the gallery ever done
>> that before?
> I have, on a couple of occations. It's a bit hairy. I can write up
> a step-by-step procedure if you want, but it would be easier if we
> first agree on exactly how we want the end result to be.
O.K. Um, perhaps we better make sure we have a full, verified backup
tape before we begin, as well.
> To me it looks like the following release- and branch-tags may be
> particularly interesting:
> r21-1-2 (revision: 1.195) (latest on trunk)
This isn't interesting in the sense you're thinking of. It is only
the beta tag for making patches. It should not be touched, moved,
folded, spindled, mutilated, have the tag removed, etc. etc. etc.
> release-22-0 (branch: 1.155.4) (a branch)
This tag needs to be deleted.
> release-21-2 (branch: 1.155.2) (a branch)
This is the tag that needs to be made default.
> r20-0patches (branch: 1.12.2) (a branch)
This can be ignored, I believe, or it can be deleted. I made this tag
in early 1997 and never used it.
> Do you want what is now the 21-2 branch to be on the (development)
> main trunk, and what's currently (21-1-2) on the main trunk to be a
> 21-1 (stable) branch?
No, I don't think so (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me).
Whatever branch 21.1 becomes should inherit the history of the
current default branch.
> And let the others be as they are (r20-0patches a stable branch,
> 22-0 a development branch)?
> Or something else?
r20-0-patches can be deleted since it was never used. release-22-0
should be deleted so the name can be reused at a more appropriate
time.
> There are a couple of methods to do these things, however they all involve
> creating new branches. Unfortunately the trunk (aka main branch) doesn't
> have a name in CVS, and unfortunately there's no functionality[1] in CVS to
> assist much in renaming. So some tagging and branching and copying will
> have to be done.
I see. Did I give you enough supplementary information, or do you
need more?
> [1] There is a mechanism to give another name to a branch, unfortunately
> it's extremely buggy and can't be used. If the main branch hadn't
> been anonymous this (non-working) functionality could have made this
> renaming process quite easy. But that's not to be :-)
I see.
