Hi,
Quoting "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> I think this is a semantic argument. The problem isn't that we don't
> understand how CVS behaves; it's that we find that behavior
> undesirable
I fully agree to that and find it undesirable as well.
> aka broken.
Well, for some it's a feature, for others a bug ;-)
My point was that other converters have better support for such
(undesirable, but still existent) tags that span multiple commits. If
that's unwanted anyway, it seems cleaner to fix the CVS repository,
yes. Has that been done now? Or is somebody going to do it? (See
Peter's patch he just linked again upthread).
> If we really care about having a tag that
> contains the exact files that are tagged in CVS, we can create a
> branch from one of the commits involved, and then apply a commit to
> that branch that places it in the state that matches the contents of
> the CVS tag.
Exactly (with the difference that with the branch you preserve the
history of changes, while the variant with the tag does not).
> AIUI, this is not very different from what you'd have to
> do in Subversion, where a tag is a branch is a copy.
I think so, too. I'd even state that subversion doesn't really support
tagging, instead it simulates tags with branches.
Regards
Markus Wanner
