Bug 83945 - [Tags Operations] Moving an existing tag on a local project ignored deleted files
Summary: [Tags Operations] Moving an existing tag on a local project ignored deleted f...
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: CVS (show other bugs)
Version: 3.1   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P5 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: platform-cvs-inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: helpwanted
: 88723 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-01-28 11:38 EST by Olivier Thomann CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 15:31 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-01-28 11:38:16 EST
When tagging with existing a project, the files that have been deleted should be
"untagged". Otherwise people that check out using that tag might end up getting
files that should not be there and that can be completely out of date with the
other files.
Using the rtag -a command should do it.
A simple check box for the existing "Tag with existing" functionnality would be
good enough.
Comment 1 Michael Valenta CLA 2005-01-31 13:16:21 EST
Unfortunately, in some situations, it is more complicated than that. It is 
possible to configure local projects such that there directory structure does 
not mirror that of the server. So, although it would be possible to add 
another checkbox to the Tag>As Versions dialog that indicates that rtag should 
be used, it would need to be made clear to the user what the risks were. The 
work around is to perform a Tag with Existing in the repo view which does do 
an rtag with the proper parameters.

Given that there is a workaround, there is no plan to address this in 3.1.
Comment 2 Michael Valenta CLA 2005-03-22 08:34:02 EST
*** Bug 88723 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 15:31:42 EDT
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.