Re: parsecvs and unnamed branches

From: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2006, 22:28 UTC
Message-ID: <9e4733910606161528n668a96afgefca16644f8038b6@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1150496362.6983.34.camel@neko.keithp.com>

On 6/16/06, Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 17:44 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > I'm getting thousands of messages about unnamed branches and even
> > 'unnamed branch from master-UNNAMED-BRANCH'.
> >
> > How do you get unnamed branches into CVS, are these check-in errors or
> > are people actually working on unnamed branches? Or is parsecvs not
> > finding all of the branch info?
>
> branch names rely on a special 'branch tag' in the "symbols" section of
> the CVS file, but actual branches are flagged directly in the revision
> list. I don't know how it happens, but ,v files often end up with
> branches in the revision tree which haven't an associated tag. Go
> figure.
>
> For example, in the top level mozilla/Makefile.in,v file, you'll see a
> branch from version 1.36 with an initial commit 1.36.2.1. Using the
> wacky CVS branch revision numbering scheme, there should be an
> associated tag for version 1.36.0.2 (yes, the last two digits are
> flipped). But, none is present in the file.

I was reading the CVS manual and it talks about magic branch number as being the ones with zero in them. Doesn't go into a lot of detail. Apparently they are autogenerated internally.

http://ximbiot.com/cvs/wiki/index.php?title=CVS--Concurrent_Versions_System_v1.12.12.1:_Branching_and_merging#Magic_branch_numbers

Show 29 quoted lines

>
> The reverse situation also occurs, with tags for branches that have no
> revisions in the file. This case makes sense -- until you make a change
> in a file along a branch, there will be no other record in the file of
> where the branch came from.
>
> I'd love to figure out a better mechanism for merging these nameless
> branches into the resulting repository, but I don't know how to
> correlate unnamed branches in one file with unnamed branches in other
> files.
>
> The current scheme of making up a fixed name and hoping that there
> aren't multiple unmamed branches from the same root is probably fraught
> with peril.
>
> --
> keith.packard@intel.com
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBEky5qQp8BWwlsTdMRAvI1AJ4nXKyzeupTDarXI+yM0zvuHaCoTQCdEBYC
> Kl7lEHIJgi5Tk24quc9FZyM=
> =FA7H
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com