Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build RC3a I have always been annoyed by the fact that version tags are sorted alphabetically most time I have to pick one (e.g. compare with different version). However I noticed than in the CVS explorer view, when expanding versions of a project, the ordering of the versions is chronological, which is exactly what I would expect it to be in all cases I have to pick any. So, why isn't it consistently using the chronological order when displaying a list of version tags ?
Version tags should always be sorted in reverse alphebetical order and branch tags should be sorted in alphebetical order (there is no gauranteed way to get the actual time a tag was created so tags are not sorted chronologically). I have done a quick check and this is the case everywhere I looked. If you know of a particular place where this is not the case, please reopen stating the exact location (view, dialog, etc).
Look at org.eclipse.jdt.core in CVS explorer, under Versions/org.eclipse.jdt.core, you'll see that v_312 is the last one listed. OK Now open editor on IJavaProject, then show it in CVS resource history. You'll notice that v_312 is listed last again. OK Now try to tag it with existing version name, expand Versions subtree, and you'll see that v_312 isn't the first available candidate.
I see the problem. In CVS, tags are kept on files only. Therefore, you need a file to get the tags. For projects (and folders in the project), we use the .project file of the project (this is a default that can be configured). For files, we actually get the tags directly off the file. The problem is that the IJavaProject file has more tags on it then the project's .project file so you are actually seeing all the tags on the file from the beginning of it's life and some of these are after v_312 alphebetically (so appear before v_312). I think what we really need here is a mechanism for filtering tags (see bug 13460). It may even be possible to filter by date (given a file that is modified regularly). If you are satisfied with the above, let me know and I will mark this as a duplicate of bug 13460 and annotate that bug with a request to investigate filtering tags by date.
I see now. Filtering would indeed be a good idea.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13460 ***
