From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21347 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2002 16:17:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21259 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 16:17:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mms2.broadcom.com) (63.70.210.59) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 16:17:19 -0000 Received: from 63.70.210.1 by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom MMS-2 SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:15:55 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 2a12fa22-b688-11d4-a6a1-00508bfc9626 Received: from dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com (dt-sj3-118 [10.21.64.118]) by mail-sj1-5.sj.broadcom.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2CGHE1S005596; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:17:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from cgd@localhost) by dt-sj3-118.sj.broadcom.com ( 8.9.1/SJ8.9.1) id IAA11972; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:17:13 -0800 (PST) To: hilfingr@gnat.com cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Confusion regarding gdb_5_1_1-2002-01-24-release tag References: <20020312104857.1D75BF28C9@nile.gnat.com> From: cgd@broadcom.com Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: hilfingr@gnat.com's message of "Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:49:38 +0000 (UTC)" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 1090F6302608277-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 At Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:49:38 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Hilfinger" wrote: > No doubt this question simply reflects my aversion to CVS, but here goes: heh. > a cvs log run on gdb/value.h shows that tag gdb_5_1_1-2002-01-24-release > is defined as 1.21. Revision 1.21 of gdb/value.h is dated 2001/05/21. > Revision 1.26 is dated 2002/01/04. This appears not to be the only > example. What gives? (Actually, first, i'm puzzled: i looked at http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gdb/value.h?cvsroot=src&only_with_tag=gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch and it shows that tag being on rev 1.20, not 1.21. Since that revision also corresponds to the date you mentioned, I'll assume you mistyped the rev #.) Anyway, revisions tagged with that tag (gdb_5_1_1-2002-01-24-release, the 5.1.1 release tag) were taken from the 5.1 branch (the branch tag with name gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch, which corresponds to pseudo-revision 1.20.0.4). Expressed in cvs commands, that's probably something like: cvs rtag -r gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch \ gdb_5_1_1-2002-01-24-release \ module_list (possibly with a -D "date" thrown in, depening on Andrew's style.) So, the current state _of that branch_ is what was tagged. If there had been modifications _on the branch_ to the file, they would have been in a revision number 1.20.X.Y, and that's what would have been tagged. However, there weren't, so the revision corresponding to the base of the branch (1.20) was tagged. Revision 1.26 is on the 'trunk' of development, not on a branch. Since the branch was being tagged, as described above rev. 1.20 was tagged instead. (FWIW, looking at this file with cvsweb makes me doubt the veracity of cvsweb. cvsweb doesn't list rev 1.20 as branchpoint for that branch, and instead only lists that branch tag as a tag on rev 1.20. That's a bit confusing.) "Hope that helps!" 8-) chris