From: "Kevin Grittner" on
Magnus Hagander <magnus(a)hagander.net> wrote:

> I'm also seeing some entries tagged with "vendor branch", such as:
>
http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/storage/smgr/README
> revision 1.1.1.1
>
> Same issue there, the file comes out on the other end with the
> wrong keyword (in this case, listed as 1.1).
>
> I admit I don't even know what a vendor branch is, except I know
> I've been annoyed by them before :-)

I believe revision 1.1.1.1 is normally seen only for file brought in
through the "cvs import" command. "vendor branch" would make some
sense as a commit message for an import.

-Kevin

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Magnus Hagander on
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 15:31, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(a)hagander.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm also seeing some entries tagged with "vendor branch", such as:
>>
> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/storage/smgr/README
>> revision 1.1.1.1
>>
>> Same issue there, the file comes out on the other end with the
>> wrong keyword �(in this case, listed as 1.1).
>>
>> I admit I don't even know what a vendor branch is, except I know
>> I've been annoyed by them before :-)
>
> I believe revision 1.1.1.1 is normally seen only for file brought in
> through the "cvs import" command. �"vendor branch" would make some
> sense as a commit message for an import.

Yeah, something like that. But why do we for the file above have one
"initial revision" and one "vendor branch", whereas for other files we
don't? (and there's no difference betweenthem)

Or rather, we do have two for example for md.c - but the second one is
not listed as being on vendor branch.


--
�Magnus Hagander
�Me: http://www.hagander.net/
�Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: "Kevin Grittner" on
Magnus Hagander <magnus(a)hagander.net> wrote:

>> I believe revision 1.1.1.1 is normally seen only for file brought
>> in through the "cvs import" command. "vendor branch" would make
>> some sense as a commit message for an import.
>
> Yeah, something like that. But why do we for the file above have
> one "initial revision" and one "vendor branch", whereas for other
> files we don't? (and there's no difference between them)

Hmmm... I quick check of CVS documentation indicates that 1.1.1 is
reserved for the "vendor branch" created by an import. New vendor
versions can be imported and will bump 1.1.1.1 to 1.1.1.2 and so on.
When you commit a modification to a vendor branch file, it goes
onto the trunk. So, either there was something which *looked* like
a modification to CVS which got massaged out (whitespace or some
such), or someone independently imported the file and someone
(possibly a different someone) committed the file independently of
the import. I think the latter is probably more likely, but the
former seems within the realm of possibility.

Where they are identical, unless the imported version is included in
any tag or PostgreSQL branch, I would eliminate it and keep the
"normal" copy. Short of maintaining a coherent history, I don't see
the point of keeping two separate but identical revisions of a file.

-Kevin

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Bruce Momjian on
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Working on the git conversion with keywords, and I've noticed a couple of
> strange things that don't come up the same way in git. All of these are in
> non-code files, but they do defeat the "identical tarball" mode.
>
> For example, a number of files have commits showing up in cvs with nothing at
> all changed. This triggered an update of the keywords only, with no contents
> changed.
>
> For example, look at:
> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/Attic/FAQ_AIX.diff?r1=1.19.2.9;r2=1.19.2.10
> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/Attic/FAQ_HPUX.diff?r1=1.14.2.9;r2=1.14.2.10
> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/Attic/FAQ_Solaris.diff?r1=1.22.2.10;r2=1.22.2.11
>
> Some show up as completely empty, like:
> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/generate_history.pl.diff?r1=1.1;r2=1.1.2.1
>
>
> Does anybody know how this can even happen? Wouldn't cvs normally just
> not commit the file if there are no changes?

I have reproduced this by modifying just the CVS tag:

$PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/catalog/README,v 1.15 2010/07/20
18:38:53 momjian Exp $

so it is possible, and can be ignored.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Magnus Hagander on
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 20:42, Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Working on the git conversion with keywords, and I've noticed a couple of
>> strange things that don't come up the same way in git. All of these are in
>> non-code files, but they do defeat the "identical tarball" mode.
>>
>> For example, a number of files have commits showing up in cvs with nothing at
>> all changed. This triggered an update of the keywords only, with no contents
>> changed.
>>
>> For example, look at:
>> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/Attic/FAQ_AIX.diff?r1=1.19.2.9;r2=1.19.2.10
>> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/Attic/FAQ_HPUX.diff?r1=1.14.2.9;r2=1.14.2.10
>> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/Attic/FAQ_Solaris.diff?r1=1.22.2.10;r2=1.22.2.11
>>
>> Some show up as completely empty, like:
>> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/generate_history.pl.diff?r1=1.1;r2=1.1.2.1
>>
>>
>> Does anybody know how this can even happen? Wouldn't cvs normally just
>> not commit the file if there are no changes?
>
> I have reproduced this by modifying just the CVS tag:
>
> � � � �$PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/catalog/README,v 1.15 2010/07/20
> � � � �18:38:53 momjian Exp $

To clarify with what Bruce said on IM to me, the situation is when the
workflow is to manually copy a file from one repo to another before
committing (a working one vs the committer one for example), it may
not be up to date on the version id. Personally this never happens
because I move files by making "cvs diff" in one and applying in the
other, not copying the files.

For one thing, this showed up in a lot of .po files for 8.1.0RC1.
Peter, can you comment on if this coincides with the tools you use to
do those things?


> so it is possible, and can be ignored.

Yeah, but do we want to? It means a git checkout of the branch tip
will be slightly different - in keywords only - from the previous
checkout in cvs.

--
�Magnus Hagander
�Me: http://www.hagander.net/
�Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers