Re: Odd CVS revision number - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Odd CVS revision number
Date
Msg-id 4B8696D4.4020504@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Odd CVS revision number  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Odd CVS revision number
List pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I just noticed that the revision numbering for the new
> src/doc/sgml/recovery-config.sgml file I added started from 2 for some
> reason. The first revision was 2.1, and when I just updated it the new
> revision became 2.2.
>
> It seems to work fine, but I've never seen CVS revision numbers like
> that before. Anyone have a clue what might've caused that? Will that
> cause confusion?
>
>   

It should be fine. 
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/notes/cvs/revisions.html> says:
   **CVS, when assigning an initial version to a new file, doesn't   always assign 1.1. Instead, it finds the highest
numberedrevision   of any file in the same directory, takes the first digit, and   assigns a revision of <digit>.1 to
newfiles. In other words, if you   have a file in the same directory that has a revision of 2.30, a new   file in that
directorywill get a revision number of 2.1, not 1.1.
 


For some unknown reason, we have some version 2.x files in doc/src/sgml: 
<http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/>, which is 
why
you saw this.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG