From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jun 19 19: 0:44 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977CA14BE5 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:00:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA69075; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:02:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Chuck Robey Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: laying down tags In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 19 Jun 1999 18:39:05 EDT." Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:02:13 -0700 Message-ID: <69071.929844133@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I notice that in the last 6 months a change has occurred in how we use > our cvs tools, in that there's a great increase in the usage of tags. And that's a good thing. Even though it adds some file bloat, insufficient use of tags has made some painful events in the past more painful than they had to be and it restricted other people from doing certain types of experimental work. We have been traditionally quite tag-shy for the reasons you mention and it limits the full benefits of CVS considerably to be so. > I also notice that while I often want to see the last version of a > particular port, I can not remember, ever, needing to see more than > that. The ports tree's profusion of 2-4 versions of the same piece of That's why ports are rarely tagged. In short, I disagree completely with you on the question of tags. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message