-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. I think 0.next would be an invalid construct, or also return 0. Yeah, you are correct. > If you take this off the trunk, this might make more sense: > BRANCH.root is on the trunk (or another branch), so BRANCH.root.next > would return the revision following the root revision on the parent. > For example, 1.2.2.7.root would return 1.2. Since 1.2.next yields > 1.3, then 1.2.2.7.root.next should also yield 1.3. Yup. > > Since there is no revision following on the `0 branch', > .trunk.root.next should either also be 0 or be invalid. Agreed. Given that 1.2.2.7.root == 1.2 which is the predicessor revision to the first revision on the branch, and .trunk being on the TRUNK, then .trunk.root is the predicessor revision for the TRUNK also known as `0'. Therefore, I suppose that there could be a need for .origin to be the first revision on TRUNK and .trunk.head to replace HEAD on TRUNK. Looking at a mixture of the modifiers with regard to time... One presumes that '.trunk:2005-03-01 08:00:00 UTC' would be the revision that was committed just before 2005-03-01 08:00:00 UTC. It is less clear how one would specify the .next revision on the TRUNK for that case... -- Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCJ1uH3x41pRYZE/gRAsoZAKCfPuDJHWrt+y3Qtwk2AfGe9inw1ACgyQub /m83ZvvHmEFzVQtDX8fo78k= =2HUw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list Bug-cvs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs