In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert L Sowders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I took a look at the cvsweb and
> noticed that mfs_vfsops.c was marked as removed at version 1.93 4 weeks
> ago by phk,
It was removed in -current, but not in -stable. A file in CVS can
exist in some branches but not in others.
> but two weeks ago version 181 was added and updated by 1.82
> but the dates are backwards on the versions. Screwy eh?
That is not what I see when I look at cvsweb or use "cvs log".
> There was a commit to the mfs_vfsops.c file done on Jun 17, that may have
> been kinda screwy, or maybe it's just the cvs system.
That commit was on the RELENG_4 branch (-stable), where the file is
still alive. Nothing screwy there.
> version 1.81 is marked as occuring on Jun 17, 2001 and version 1.82
> occurred at Apr 15 2000.
I don't know where you saw that. CVSWeb shows a date of Dec 19,
1999 for revision 1.81 and Apr 15, 2000 for revision 1.82. That
agrees with what is recorded in the actual RCS file.
> I'm not sure if cvsup uses the date or the version when it's supping
> files,
If you are asking for the -stable branch with "tag=RELENG_4" then
CVSup uses the version.
> Checking my srcs locally it appears that indeed my cvsup pulled
> version 1.81.2.1 dated 2001/06/17 which is wrong and does not have
> the add in version 1.82.
That is exactly what CVSup should have done. Revision 1.82 is not
a part of -stable; it is in -current only. -stable was branched at
revision 1.81, before revision 1.82 was created. For -stable, the
revision after 1.81 is 1.81.2.1. Next will come 1.81.2.2, etc.
> I wonder how many other things are screwy in the cvs repository?
I don't see anything screwy there. :-)
John
--
John Polstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA
"Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
