Re: anoncvs and diff - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nigel J. Andrews
Subject Re: anoncvs and diff
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0210031707340.26902-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: anoncvs and diff  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: anoncvs and diff  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: anoncvs and diff  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> > cvs diff -r HEAD pltcl.c
> > 
> > gave me differences against revision 1.64
> > 
> > and cvs update pltcl.c
> > 
> > said it was merging changes between 1.64 and 1.61
> > 
> > and a plain cvs diff now shows me differences against 1.64
> > 
> > I think this is probably just a short fall in my fairly basic knowledge of how
> > cvs works.
> 
> What does 'cvs log' say about the file, especially the top stuff?

It gave me the log all the way up to the 1.64 revision with the REL7_3_STABLE
label assigned to revision 1.64.0.2

Revision 1.64 apparently backing out my patch which made 1.63.

I had a brain wave and did the cvs log command which was what lead me to try
specifying revisions. As I say it looks like a lack of knowledge about how cvs
works for these things. I always thought it worked like RCS and gave a diff
against the latest checked in but obviously not.

BTW, I've found Neil Conway's patch for this file, email dated 25th Sept., I
can forward it or apply it and include the changes along with whatever I do for
my next submission, which ever you'd prefer. I'd suggest it's easy to let me
apply and submit it due to overlaps.


-- 
Nigel J. Andrews





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Shridhar Daithankar"
Date:
Subject: Re: Large databases, performance
Next
From: Greg Copeland
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Large databases, performance