# CVS heads-up

- Thread: https://externals.io/message/28118
- Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/28118
- Started by William A. Rowe on 2007-02-23T20:31:15+00:00
- Messages: 8
- Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net
- More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt

---

## #28118 — William A. Rowe — 2007-02-23T20:31:15+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28118

FYI, a cvs rtag -d php5_5_0 might be in order before somebody trips
over this (if 5.2 ever evolves to 5.5, sort of unlikely but who knows?)

Bill

---

## #28119 — Antony Dovgal — 2007-02-23T21:00:58+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28119 · In reply to: #28118

> FYI, a cvs rtag -d php5_5_0 might be in order before somebody trips
> over this (if 5.2 ever evolves to 5.5, sort of unlikely but who knows?)

?

-- 
Wbr, 
Antony Dovgal

---

## #28120 — William A. Rowe — 2007-02-23T21:03:02+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28120 · In reply to: #28119

Antony Dovgal wrote:
> 
> > […]

Was there ever such a release?  There is such a tag hiding out there across
php-src.  (It's possibly hard to find because it's hiding in alot of the
attic files, which is why I suggested rtag -d.)

Unless, was there a purpose for tag (not branch) 5.5.0?

---

## #28121 — Antony Dovgal — 2007-02-23T21:09:03+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28121 · In reply to: #28120

> Antony Dovgal wrote:
> > […]
> 
> Was there ever such a release?  

Apparently no.

> There is such a tag hiding out there across
> php-src.  (It's possibly hard to find because it's hiding in alot of the
> attic files, which is why I suggested rtag -d.)

Does it do any harm?

> Unless, was there a purpose for tag (not branch) 5.5.0?

Probably somebody set this tag several years ago.
Is this a problem?

-- 
Wbr, 
Antony Dovgal

---

## #28122 — William A. Rowe — 2007-02-23T21:16:33+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28122 · In reply to: #28121

Antony Dovgal wrote:
> 
> Probably somebody set this tag several years ago.
> Is this a problem?

Of course, if you are the person who goes to tag php5_5_0, which will
blow up loudly, or almost silently if none of the current files have that
tag but they sit in the attic.  cvs co will pick them up in the later case
quite quietly, and if you aren't paying attention, are delivered in the
final tarball :)

---

## #28123 — Marcus Boerger — 2007-02-23T21:22:24+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28123 · In reply to: #28122

Hello William,

  why? Simple cvs tag -F will do the trick.

best regards
marcus

Friday, February 23, 2007, 10:16:33 PM, you wrote:

> Antony Dovgal wrote:
> > […]

> Of course, if you are the person who goes to tag php5_5_0, which will
> blow up loudly, or almost silently if none of the current files have that
> tag but they sit in the attic.  cvs co will pick them up in the later case
> quite quietly, and if you aren't paying attention, are delivered in the
> final tarball :)




Best regards,
 Marcus

---

## #28124 — Antony Dovgal — 2007-02-23T21:25:09+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28124 · In reply to: #28122

> Antony Dovgal wrote:
> > […]
> 
> Of course, if you are the person who goes to tag php5_5_0, which will
> blow up loudly

Well, we're not going to use in anyway, because it doesn't comply with the naming standard we use:
php_x_x_x, not phpx_x_x.

> or almost silently if none of the current files have that
> tag but they sit in the attic.  cvs co will pick them up in the later case
> quite quietly, and if you aren't paying attention, are delivered in the
> final tarball :)
> 


-- 
Wbr, 
Antony Dovgal

---

## #28126 — William A. Rowe — 2007-02-23T21:35:29+00:00

URL: https://externals.io/message/28118#28126 · In reply to: #28123

Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello William,
> 
>   why? Simple cvs tag -F will do the trick.

Nope - because -F doesn't remove tags, only overrides them.  Ancient
attic artifacts would remain tagged...

Antony Dovgal wrote:
>
> Well, we're not going to use in anyway, because it doesn't comply with
> the naming standard we use:
> php_x_x_x, not phpx_x_x.

Good point :)