On 18 Jun 2003, Ronald Petty wrote:
> I just reread the rcsfile man page and had the following question. This
> question might be answered if I read the source code to cvs, but I
> haven't yet.
>
> Basically, why do you need have
>
> branches {num}*;
>
> under the delta node (grammar).
>
> It seems to be redundant because the
>
> num
>
> that is listed for the given delta has all that information (branch
> points).
No, it doesn't.
> ex. If the node num is 1.2.2.1
> Why have 1.2.2.1 in the branch field, unless I read the man page wrong
You wouldn't have 1.2.2.1 in the branch field for that node. What you
would have is zero or more numbers referring to nodes that start
branches based on that node. Their numbers would be 1.2.2.1.X.1 where X
is some even integer.
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
