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.
