Repairing erroneous move of setup-200303 branch tag

Max Bowsher maxb@ukf.net
Wed Apr 2 23:24:00 GMT 2003


Robert Collins wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:01:53AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I request cvsadmin membership so I can continue the cleanup from this
>>>> stage,
>>>
>>> I can't grant this (unless it's a cvs repository specific thing)..
>>>
>>> Can you work with a local copy of the modules and sync it up afterwards?
>>
>>
>> Wait.  What is the motivation for this change?
>
> I used cvs tag to move a branch, which did not do what intuition
> suggested it would.
>
>> Shorter version numbers?
>
> More accurate metadata is the reason I ok'd Max's suggestion. Version
> number, phwa.
>
>> How did we get in this state?  Why not just check out a fresh version of
>> setup, create a branch, and then check in the contents of the current
>> branch?  Or check out a version based on a given date and then create
>> the branch.
>
> Because of CVS limitations, this won't rectify the problem. There is a
> branch in setup, which has no name, but is the original setup-200303
> branch.  AFAIK one cannot retrieve that branch at all now, unless Max
> does his magic.

Exactly.

Tidying up the metadata just has the pleasant side effect of a shorter (and
more importantly: more accurate) version number.

You may examine the curious situation we have currently by browsing:
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/setup/ChangeLog?cvsroot=cygwin-
apps

Note, for example, that according to CVSweb, revisions  2.340.2.1, .2, and
.3 aren't on any branch at all, not even MAIN.

Max.



More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list