Re: "co -l" for same file in multiple branches fails

[Aaron S. Hawley]

Using `rcs' instead of `co' avoids the "multiple revisions locked"
message.  Here's a script I wrote to prove this.

echo 1.1 > foo
ci -l -t-foo foo
echo 1.2 > foo
ci -u -m1.2 foo
co -l1.1 foo
echo 1.1.1.1 > foo
ci -u1.1.1 -m1.1.1.1 foo
co -l1.2 foo
echo 1.2.1.1 > foo
ci -u1.2.1 -m1.2.1.1 foo

## 3 locks
co -f -l foo
co -f -l1.1.1 foo
rcs -l1.2.1 foo

Here's the result of rlog -h

$ rlog -h foo
RCS file: foo,v
Working file: foo
head: 1.2
branch:
locks: strict
        ashawley: 1.2.1.1
        ashawley: 1.1.1.1
        ashawley: 1.2
access list:
symbolic names:
keyword substitution: kv
total revisions: 4
=============================================================================

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Jonathan Wistar
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
>     I'm on a SUN platform which (suspiciously) has the various RCS utilities
> in /usr/local/bin,
> although
>
>         % what /usr/local/bin/co
> says:
>         SunOS 5.4 generic July 1994
> and
>         % co -V
> says:
>         RCS version 5.7
>
> I observe that if I check out the same file (locked) in 3 branches,
> the 3rd (locked) check-out doesn't actually lock the file:
>
>         % co -l foobar.c
>
>         % co -l10.1.11 foobar.c
>
>         % co -l10.1.8 foobar.c                /* fails */
>
> although it looks like it succeeds (based on the output to one's screen),
> but rlog(1) shows that
> you don't actually get the 3rd lock.
>
> I realize, based on the date, that this particular code is about 14 years
> old, but I'm not aware
> that there has been lots of development going on, since that time.
>
> So, what do we know about this bug (if anything), or where can I read up on
> "known RCS bugs and fixes"
> (or the like) ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Jonathan Wistar
>



-- 
We can lift up our hands to the sky. Find all of
those strings that they're pulling and keep from
falling back into our old rhythmic poses. Turning
us into machines. -- Darkest Hour