{"thread":{"id":"1541","subject":"FUNKY tags.","startedAt":"2005-08-16T22:43:32Z","lastAt":"2005-08-17T05:59:41Z","messageCount":4,"participants":["Dave Jones","Martin Langhoff"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"7394","messageId":"20050816224332.GE26455@redhat.com","threadId":"1541","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"FUNKY tags.","fromName":"Dave Jones","fromEmail":"davej@redhat.com","sentAt":"2005-08-16T22:43:32Z","receivedAt":"2005-08-16T22:43:32Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"davej@redhat.com","avatar":null},"body":"I just tried a cvs->git conversion using the git-cvsimport-script\nand cvsps flagged a bunch of tags as **FUNKY**\n\nI've no idea what I did when I tagged those trees, but according\nto a google search, cvsps does that when it find patchsets which\nare chronologically (and thus by patchset id) earlier than the tag,\nbut are tagwise after.  Spooky.\n\nI looked the tree over with gitk, and it seemed fine around those tags,\nso I'm wondering what value there is in preserving this info, and\nwhether we should remove it at cvsimport time somehow. Comments?\n\n\t\tDave\n"},{"id":"7405","messageId":"46a038f90508161755b43735c@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"1541","inReplyTo":"20050816224332.GE26455@redhat.com","subject":"Re: FUNKY tags.","fromName":"Martin Langhoff","fromEmail":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-08-17T00:55:18Z","receivedAt":"2005-08-17T00:55:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1e3f311b6c4c15836501901ca58f8c0b0667246488084ba524d8bc9867e22fd9?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 8/17/05, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:\n> I've no idea what I did when I tagged those trees, but according\n> to a google search, cvsps does that when it find patchsets which\n> are chronologically (and thus by patchset id) earlier than the tag,\n> but are tagwise after.  Spooky.\n\nIt's probably tags that were moved around with \"cvs tag -F footag\".\nWhen using cvs in with a dovetail strategy, people tend to merge\nBRANCH->HEAD and use a floating tag to mark how far it's been merged\nin.\n\nI am somewhat worried about cvsps getting confused by these floating\ntags. Any help in teaching cvsps to ignore tags is welcome ;)\n\n\nm\n"},{"id":"7410","messageId":"20050817024718.GA11734@redhat.com","threadId":"1541","inReplyTo":"46a038f90508161755b43735c@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: FUNKY tags.","fromName":"Dave Jones","fromEmail":"davej@redhat.com","sentAt":"2005-08-17T02:47:18Z","receivedAt":"2005-08-17T02:47:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"davej@redhat.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 12:55:18PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote:\n > On 8/17/05, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:\n > > I've no idea what I did when I tagged those trees, but according\n > > to a google search, cvsps does that when it find patchsets which\n > > are chronologically (and thus by patchset id) earlier than the tag,\n > > but are tagwise after.  Spooky.\n > \n > It's probably tags that were moved around with \"cvs tag -F footag\".\n > When using cvs in with a dovetail strategy, people tend to merge\n > BRANCH->HEAD and use a floating tag to mark how far it's been merged\n > in.\n\nIn my case, at least the most recent of those cvs tag operations\nwas just a 'cvs tag x86info-1_14'. Nothing fancy.  I'm fairly sure\nthere was nothing fancy about the earlier instance either.\nSo sure in fact, I had to look up that -F flag in the man page to find\nout what it did.\n\nx86info cvs shouldn't even have any branches, so theres no strange\nhead merging going on.\n\n > I am somewhat worried about cvsps getting confused by these floating\n > tags. Any help in teaching cvsps to ignore tags is welcome ;)\n\nIf you're curious, its a sourceforge project at cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/x86info\nmodule is 'x86info'.  Both x86info-1_14 and x86info-1_6 are marked as funky\nfor reasons I'm unaware.\n\n\t\tDave\n"},{"id":"7424","messageId":"46a038f9050816225944b03dc4@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"1541","inReplyTo":"20050817024718.GA11734@redhat.com","subject":"Re: FUNKY tags.","fromName":"Martin Langhoff","fromEmail":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","sentAt":"2005-08-17T05:59:41Z","receivedAt":"2005-08-17T05:59:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"martin.langhoff@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/1e3f311b6c4c15836501901ca58f8c0b0667246488084ba524d8bc9867e22fd9?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 8/17/05, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:\n> In my case, at least the most recent of those cvs tag operations\n> was just a 'cvs tag x86info-1_14'. Nothing fancy.  I'm fairly sure\n> there was nothing fancy about the earlier instance either.\n> So sure in fact, I had to look up that -F flag in the man page to find\n> out what it did.\n\nOk - that reduces the suspects to \n - a tag applied to only one part of the tree\n - a tag that took longer to apply than fuzztime (large tree, slow cvs\nconnection?)\n \nlet me know, and if I find time I may look at the repo. \n\nmartin\n"}]}