Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:30:30 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) <des@des.no> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/smbmsg - Imported sources Message-ID: <XFMail.20040517103030.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpekpjb2q4.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17-May-2004 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Joerg Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> writes: >> As Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >> > > Nope, but I've kept in mind that adding complete new subsystems >> > > etc. is better done by an import as opposed to just cvs adding it. >> > No, it isn't. It's easier than 'cvs add', but still wrong. >> I wouldn't it consider to be easier, but since you're not taking care >> to explain why it were wrong, it's becoming a bikeshed discussion. > > 'cvs import' places the files on a separate branch and creates a > branch tag for that branch and a point tag for the import. It is > intended for files which you get from a third party and to which you > make local changes. Nevertheless, it used to be a rule that new subsystems should be brought into the repository by means of "cvs import" rather than "cvs add". I personally was scolded once for using "cvs add" in this situation. I've never seen any discussion about changing that policy. I don't really care what the policy becomes, but it's certainly not established that "cvs add" is the answer. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20040517103030.jdp>