Moin Martijn!

> But aren't all these methods ways of working around the true problem? I know 
> all of this, but I still have to _try_ the exact branch name. And calling it 
> "UNSTABLE_BRANCH" instead of "UNSTABLE" is maybe even better. 

I understand, however I didn't see it as a problem up to now ;-)

The real issue is that you _want_ to have different names for the branches 
because otherwise you loose the development in the "old" UNSTABLE_BRANCH as 
soon as you start the new "UNSTABLE_BRANCH" because tags have to be unique. 

so I rather want to do a "cvs di -rmake_it_cool_branchpoint 
-rmake_it_cool_branch" instead of finding out when the development in a 
UNSTABLE_BRANCH for the previosu feature stopped and then update to handle 
around with timestamps. 

The disadvantage with CVS is that its amazingly difficult to diff between 
dates in branches. So why your idea sounds nice at first sight, it makes it 
actually a lot more difficult for development, as you need separate 
checkouts you can diff (as you have to update backwards first to diff 
against the branch, which screws all your local modifications because of the 
CVS conflicts up). Either that, or you end up with not working with CVS at 
all because its so horrible to use in such a case. 


Dirk