Hi Stefan,

I addressed most of your comments in an updated version. Also seemed
to have success with the temporary merge-tag flag file. The diff is
attached to this message.

 > Maybe a better approach is to make it possible to strip some suffix
 > before adding -BASE etc.. so the user can say foo-BRANCH if she
 > wants, and the base won't be called foo-BRANCH-BASE but foo-BASE.

I did a similar thing to this in that if the branch is named with a
postfix and the user supplies the postfix added tag to the merge, it
will appropriately get stripped off before the merge tag is added.

e.g. if I use "-BRANCH" as a branch postfix, then I can supply
"foo-BRANCH" to the merge command and I will end up with "foo-MERGE"
as I would expect.

Also defaulted branch-postfix to "".

 > Currently PCL-CVS doesn't use "C-c <something>" keybindings much
 > (if at all).  Instead it uses bindings like `u', `m', ... so maybe
 > that's a better direction.
 > 
 > > (or not at all, these are probably not the most regular commands)
 > Not having a binding is OK as well, yes.

I'm opting with not-at-all for now, since I agree that the single key
bindings are more obvious for pcvs (only C-c binding is kill-process)
but any obvious key is taken for branch. "J" would be okay for merge,
but I think the pair should come together.

 > It does harm because the defcustom's `:type' will be more complex
 > (you didn't bother to provide it yet) making it more complex for
 > the user to customize, and because it makes the code more complex.
 > I.e. it does harm.  All of that for no real benefit.  If the user
 > really wants to create a branch without a -BASE tag, she can use
 > cvs-mode-tag.

Okay, I added checks to ensure that the tag is at least unique. A
sadistic user could possibly use a branch-tag and specify no base-tag
to get something like this:

base: foo
branch: foo-BRANCH

 > >> BTW.  Maybe an even better option would be to provide completion
 > >> after "-j" and "-r" when you do c-x M-x cvs-mode-update.
 > > You mean than the cvs-mode-merge/branch functions all-together?

I will defer this to another line of development, but I agree it would
be nice.

If you get a chance, please check it out.

Thanks,
~Arik