[GRASS5] WARNING: CVS broken

Hi all,

while investigatin if all recent fixes have reached the CVS,
I found this inconsistency (am I'm wrong?):

  cat html/html/r.in.gdal.html |tail -3
<p><i>Last changed: $Date: 2001/07/09 12:43:32 $</i>

Running
"make changelog" (rather equal to cvs2cl.pl) I find:
2001-08-08 23:09 frankw

        * html/html/r.in.gdal.html: added notes on null support

Obviously this is not in CVS (and more). Where is it gone?

Dear developers, please check if your changes are present
in current CVS.

Thanks,

Markus

Files, which have been checkout and commited
in the time period where there were the irritating non-branch tags
where in the repository might have landed on the wrong branch.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:17:41PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

while investigatin if all recent fixes have reached the CVS,
I found this inconsistency (am I'm wrong?):

  cat html/html/r.in.gdal.html |tail -3
<p><i>Last changed: $Date: 2001/07/09 12:43:32 $</i>

Running
"make changelog" (rather equal to cvs2cl.pl) I find:
2001-08-08 23:09 frankw

        * html/html/r.in.gdal.html: added notes on null support

Obviously this is not in CVS (and more). Where is it gone?

It is in the cvs in the main branch:
Check:
  http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass/html/html/r.in.gdal.html
and

  http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass/html/html/r.in.gdal.html.diff?r1=text&tr1=1.8.2.2&r2=text&tr2=1.9&diff_format=h

That is the good part of cvs: It rarely looses data at all
if it was checked in once.

Dear developers, please check if your changes are present
in current CVS.

--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:36:17PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Files, which have been checkout and commited
in the time period where there were the irritating non-branch tags
where in the repository might have landed on the wrong branch.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:17:41PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> while investigatin if all recent fixes have reached the CVS,
> I found this inconsistency (am I'm wrong?):
>
> cat html/html/r.in.gdal.html |tail -3
> <p><i>Last changed: $Date: 2001/07/09 12:43:32 $</i>
>
> Running
> "make changelog" (rather equal to cvs2cl.pl) I find:
> 2001-08-08 23:09 frankw
>
> * html/html/r.in.gdal.html: added notes on null support
>
> Obviously this is not in CVS (and more). Where is it gone?

It is in the cvs in the main branch:
Check:
  FreeGIS.org
and

  FreeGIS.org

That is the good part of cvs: It rarely looses data at all
if it was checked in once.

:slight_smile:

However, in this case Frank Warmerdam first checked into exp tree, then
(after I realized that) into the release branch.

> Dear developers, please check if your changes are present
> in current CVS.

Is there any way to cvs diff the wrong release branch and the active
one to find the mis-checked modules?

Thanks for your patience,

Markus

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:42:02PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

> > Dear developers, please check if your changes are present
> > in current CVS.

Is there any way to cvs diff the wrong release branch and the active
one to find the mis-checked modules?

Well hmm yes,
it probably can be done using the right cvs commands.

For sure it works if you checkout both trees and run a
diff -ru on them. :slight_smile:
(Using -z4 is your friend then...)
  Bernhard

--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> > > Dear developers, please check if your changes are present
> > > in current CVS.
>
> Is there any way to cvs diff the wrong release branch and the active
> one to find the mis-checked modules?

Well hmm yes,
it probably can be done using the right cvs commands.

For sure it works if you checkout both trees and run a
diff -ru on them. :slight_smile:

That should be equivalent to:

  cvs diff -r <rev1> -r <rev2>

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

Markus Neteler wrote:

> > 2001-08-08 23:09 frankw
> >
> > * html/html/r.in.gdal.html: added notes on null support
> >
> > Obviously this is not in CVS (and more). Where is it gone?
>
> It is in the cvs in the main branch:
> Check:
> http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass/html/html/r.in.gdal.html
> and
>
> http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass/html/html/r.in.gdal.html.diff?r1=text&tr1=1.8.2.2&r2=text&tr2=1.9&diff_format=h
>
> That is the good part of cvs: It rarely looses data at all
> if it was checked in once.

:slight_smile:

However, in this case Frank Warmerdam first checked into exp tree, then
(after I realized that) into the release branch.

That's not what CVS says. The above log entry is for revision 1.9,
which is on the trunk:

  revision 1.9
  date: 2001/08/08 21:09:29; author: frankw; state: Exp; lines: +8 -0
  added notes on null support

The most recent commit on the release branch is:

  revision 1.8.2.2
  date: 2001/07/09 12:43:32; author: markus; state: Exp; lines: +3 -1
  cosmetics

I get the same results for all four of the versions which I have
checked out: current version of releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0, old
(pre-fix) version of releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0,
releasebranch_14_august_2001_5_0_0, and the head.

Only the head version has the notes regarding null support.

Basically, if anything was committed during the period in which the
non-branch releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0 tag existed, it's anyone's
guess as to the branch on which it ended up.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

Hi all,

as we still not know which commits are missing on the current
release_branch, the 5.0.0 release has to be delayed...

On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:37:43AM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
[...]

cvs -z4 diff -r tag -r tag

[...]

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:33:56PM -0400, Eric Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > > Is there any way to cvs diff the wrong release branch and the active
> > > one to find the mis-checked modules?
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > # get the wrong release branch
> > cvs co -rwrong_release_branch
> >
> > # merge changes between wrong and active
> > cvs update -j wrong_release_branch -j active_branch
> >
> > # compare results
> > cvs diff
> >

at time I am somewhat lost as I am no CVS expert for the current
problem. I neighter know the "wrong_release_branch" nor when it
was applied and even don't know how to investigate.
cvs history and
cvs annotate

are not helpful for the analysis. If someone instructs me I am willing
to check, however, I need assistance.

Bernhard has
"Removed irritating non-branch tag "releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0".
"

but I don't know how to check against this wrong tag. An error to start
with is the html/r.in.gdal.html page which doesn't contain hints on NULL
support which should be there.

Looking forward the release of 5.0.0 after fixing the CVS problems,

Markus

On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 02:09:14PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

as we still not know which commits are missing on the current
release_branch, the 5.0.0 release has to be delayed...

Okay:
Here more analysis.

As you can see with viewcvs there are a lot of tags in the
grass tree: http://freegis.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/grass/
(Selection box at the bottom.)

These tags include branch and non-branch tags.

The trouble was about the "releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0" tag.
It was created as a branch and a branch tag.
For unknown reasons somebody also introduced a non-branch tag
with excatly the same name. Glynn noticed it first.

Glynn openend a new branch with a branch-tag of:
releasebranch_14_august_2001_5_0_0

I have removed the non-branch tag "releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0",
but left the branch tag with the same name in place.

Possible problems:

Changes done in the releasebranch_14_august_2001_5_0_0 branch
might need to be merged back to the releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 branch.

Files are been removed from the releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 branch
by mistake in the process. Fix compare filenames to last release
from this branch for completeness.

We should have another prerelease then.
It seems that there should be more disciplin in committing bug-fixes
to the branch.

  Bernhard

On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 11:37:43AM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
[...]
> cvs -z4 diff -r tag -r tag
[...]

> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:33:56PM -0400, Eric Mitchell wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Markus,
> > >
> > > > Is there any way to cvs diff the wrong release branch and the active
> > > > one to find the mis-checked modules?
> > >
> > > Try this:
> > >
> > > # get the wrong release branch
> > > cvs co -rwrong_release_branch
> > >
> > > # merge changes between wrong and active
> > > cvs update -j wrong_release_branch -j active_branch
> > >
> > > # compare results
> > > cvs diff
> > >

at time I am somewhat lost as I am no CVS expert for the current
problem. I neighter know the "wrong_release_branch" nor when it
was applied and even don't know how to investigate.
cvs history and
cvs annotate

are not helpful for the analysis. If someone instructs me I am willing
to check, however, I need assistance.

Bernhard has
"Removed irritating non-branch tag "releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0".
"

but I don't know how to check against this wrong tag. An error to start
with is the html/r.in.gdal.html page which doesn't contain hints on NULL
support which should be there.

Looking forward the release of 5.0.0 after fixing the CVS problems,

--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Glynn openend a new branch with a branch-tag of:
releasebranch_14_august_2001_5_0_0

Note: everything which I committed on this branch has since been
committed on the "april" branch.

Since Bernhard fixed the problem with the "april" tag, the "august"
tag is redundant. It might be a good idea to delete the "august" tag
to avoid any possible confusion.

Possible problems:

Changes done in the releasebranch_14_august_2001_5_0_0 branch
might need to be merged back to the releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 branch.

This isn't necessary.

Files are been removed from the releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 branch
by mistake in the process. Fix compare filenames to last release
from this branch for completeness.

I'm certain that nothing was removed from the *branch*. However, some
people may have committed changes which they thought were on this
branch, but were actually on the trunk.

A simple check is to look at the version of the changed file in the
output from "cvs log". If the version consists of two numbers, e.g.
"1.9", then it's on the trunk. If it is on a branch, it will have at
least four numbers, e.g. "1.8.2.2".

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

Markus Neteler wrote:

Bernhard has
"Removed irritating non-branch tag "releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0".
"

but I don't know how to check against this wrong tag.

You can't; the non-branch "april" tag has gone. Even if it were still
there, it wouldn't do you much good: AFAICT, everything which wasn't
part of the branch was tagged with the non-branch "april" tag.

An error to start
with is the html/r.in.gdal.html page which doesn't contain hints on NULL
support which should be there.

If you wish to find changes which were inadvertently committed to the
head (e.g. html/html/r.in.gdal.html, version 1.9), check out the head
and use e.g.:

  cvs log -d '>2001-08-09 00:00'
or
  cvs diff -D '2001-08-09 00:00'

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

Hi again on the CVS broken issue,

I am trying to understand the "cvs log" command.
At time I have to analyse a 120000+ lines file (stuff from May to today),
which is VERY boring. This I have created with

cvs log -d">2001-05-20" > cvs_log_everything_since_may.txt

(idea from:)
http://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs_16.html#SEC141

However, I want to see only non-release-branch commits.
But I don't get the "-r" flag working:

cvs log -d">2001-05-20" -r ::releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0
cvs server: nothing known about ::releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0

(note, the "::" shall limit the search. From the docs above:
"::rev
                    Revisions from the beginning of the branch up to, but
                    not including, rev.
"

It seems I am missing something, any CVS experts out there?

Markus

Hi,

another followup:

I still try to understand *how* to interplete the cvs log file. As I
remember Glynn had the problem that d.rgb was added to the wrong
(non-)branch or whatever. So I focus on this module to understand
what's going on here.

So, using:

cvs log -d">2001-05-20" -r:releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 -wglynn |grep -v OBJ

to check for "glynn"'s checkins I have seen that d.rgb lives in the
"Attic" of CVS (most of other modules not).

Might the "Attic"-home of a module be an indicator for something has been
gone wrong?

Well, unless someone knows how use the "cvs log" in a useful manner,
I'll stop the investigation...

Markus

Markus:
Some information might be lost by CVS commands.
Source is never lost, but tags might.

In removing the irritating tag, which never should have been created
in the first place, I also eliminated information on which files
were on the tags.

Check the cvs status output which describes per file which revisions
are tagged for what. cvs log describes which changes were done between
revisions.

All in all reading the Cederquist and examining the outputs of these
commands will deeped your cvs knowledge for the future I think.
So it is worth the time.

Sorry that I cannot answer all questions in complete detail.
  Bernhard

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

another followup:

I still try to understand *how* to interplete the cvs log file. As I
remember Glynn had the problem that d.rgb was added to the wrong
(non-)branch or whatever. So I focus on this module to understand
what's going on here.

So, using:

cvs log -d">2001-05-20" -r:releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 -wglynn |grep -v OBJ

to check for "glynn"'s checkins I have seen that d.rgb lives in the
"Attic" of CVS (most of other modules not).

Might the "Attic"-home of a module be an indicator for something has been
gone wrong?

Well, unless someone knows how use the "cvs log" in a useful manner,
I'll stop the investigation...

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass5 mailing list
grass5@grass.itc.it
http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5

--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:13:19PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Markus:
Some information might be lost by CVS commands.
Source is never lost, but tags might.

In removing the irritating tag, which never should have been created
in the first place, I also eliminated information on which files
were on the tags.

Check the cvs status output which describes per file which revisions
are tagged for what. cvs log describes which changes were done between
revisions.

Well, if the non-branch-tag elimination also removed this tag description
(while keeping the sources) I feel that neither "cvs log" nor "cvs status"
can see anything (as it is removed). Hopefully I am wrong.

It is not clear to me *when* (Date) the non-branch tag
"releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0" has been applied. This may reduce the
number of log-lines to analyse (at time 250k lines).

All in all reading the Cederquist and examining the outputs of these
commands will deeped your cvs knowledge for the future I think.
So it is worth the time.

Well, I try my very best :slight_smile:

If
- we know when the non-branch tag was applied
- we have a version shortly before the application

we might find out which code was removed due to the non-branch tag-removal?
Just another guess...

Sorry that I cannot answer all questions in complete detail.
  Bernhard

Markus

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 05:24:54PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> another followup:
>
> I still try to understand *how* to interplete the cvs log file. As I
> remember Glynn had the problem that d.rgb was added to the wrong
> (non-)branch or whatever. So I focus on this module to understand
> what's going on here.
>
> So, using:
>
> cvs log -d">2001-05-20" -r:releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 -wglynn |grep -v OBJ
>
> to check for "glynn"'s checkins I have seen that d.rgb lives in the
> "Attic" of CVS (most of other modules not).
>
> Might the "Attic"-home of a module be an indicator for something has been
> gone wrong?
>
> Well, unless someone knows how use the "cvs log" in a useful manner,
> I'll stop the investigation...
>
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> grass5 mailing list
> grass5@grass.itc.it
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass5

--
Professional Service around Free Software (intevation.net)
The FreeGIS Project (freegis.org)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)
FSF Europe (fsfeurope.org)

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:34:20PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:13:19PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> Markus:
> Some information might be lost by CVS commands.
> Source is never lost, but tags might.
>
> In removing the irritating tag, which never should have been created
> in the first place, I also eliminated information on which files
> were on the tags.
>
> Check the cvs status output which describes per file which revisions
> are tagged for what. cvs log describes which changes were done between
> revisions.

Well, if the non-branch-tag elimination also removed this tag description
(while keeping the sources) I feel that neither "cvs log" nor "cvs status"
can see anything (as it is removed). Hopefully I am wrong.

You are right. But this is not a problem.
Look from cvs perspective: CVS usually keeps one file in the
repository per source file. This file has a header which contains roughly
what can be seen with cvs status. Then there are all source
revisions in this file. You can get information about then with log.

It is not clear to me *when* (Date) the non-branch tag
"releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0" has been applied. This may reduce the
number of log-lines to analyse (at time 250k lines).

There is probably no way to find out as "cvs history" does not log it.

If
- we know when the non-branch tag was applied
- we have a version shortly before the application

we might find out which code was removed due to the non-branch tag-removal?

Code will be there but maybe not on the branch.
I only removed the non-branch tag from files which were not on the branch.
:slight_smile:

We should be save. My suggestion: Make a pre-release and check the
names and numbers of the files in the tarball with the last
prerelease and compare...

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:48:33PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:34:20PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 06:13:19PM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > Markus:
> > Some information might be lost by CVS commands.
> > Source is never lost, but tags might.
> >
> > In removing the irritating tag, which never should have been created
> > in the first place, I also eliminated information on which files
> > were on the tags.
> >
> > Check the cvs status output which describes per file which revisions
> > are tagged for what. cvs log describes which changes were done between
> > revisions.
>
> Well, if the non-branch-tag elimination also removed this tag description
> (while keeping the sources) I feel that neither "cvs log" nor "cvs status"
> can see anything (as it is removed). Hopefully I am wrong.

You are right. But this is not a problem.
Look from cvs perspective: CVS usually keeps one file in the
repository per source file. This file has a header which contains roughly
what can be seen with cvs status. Then there are all source
revisions in this file. You can get information about then with log.

> It is not clear to me *when* (Date) the non-branch tag
> "releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0" has been applied. This may reduce the
> number of log-lines to analyse (at time 250k lines).

There is probably no way to find out as "cvs history" does not log it.

> If
> - we know when the non-branch tag was applied
> - we have a version shortly before the application
>
> we might find out which code was removed due to the non-branch tag-removal?

Code will be there but maybe not on the branch.
I only removed the non-branch tag from files which were not on the branch.
:slight_smile:

We should be save. My suggestion: Make a pre-release and check the
names and numbers of the files in the tarball with the last
prerelease and compare...

Well, done:

I have diff'ed the today's CVS version and the PRE1 source code:
http://grass.itc.it/cvs_diff/

I have to leave - if anyone may have a look at the file...

Markus

Markus Neteler wrote:

I am trying to understand the "cvs log" command.
At time I have to analyse a 120000+ lines file (stuff from May to today),
which is VERY boring. This I have created with

cvs log -d">2001-05-20" > cvs_log_everything_since_may.txt

(idea from:)
http://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs_16.html#SEC141

However, I want to see only non-release-branch commits.
But I don't get the "-r" flag working:

cvs log -d">2001-05-20" -r ::releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0
cvs server: nothing known about ::releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0

(note, the "::" shall limit the search. From the docs above:
"::rev
                    Revisions from the beginning of the branch up to, but
                    not including, rev.
"

It seems I am missing something, any CVS experts out there?

Note: "revision" normally implies a non-branch tag.

My CVS documentation doesn't mention "::". I'm currently running
1.10.7; I'll upgrade to the latest version.

I still try to understand *how* to interplete the cvs log file. As I
remember Glynn had the problem that d.rgb was added to the wrong
(non-)branch or whatever. So I focus on this module to understand
what's going on here.

More precisely, d.rgb/cmd "reappeared" when it acquired the non-branch
version of the tag. d.rgb/cmd shouldn't be in the release branch, but
d.rgb itself should (containing just Gmakefile and main.c).

So, using:

cvs log -d">2001-05-20" -r:releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0 -wglynn |grep -v OBJ

to check for "glynn"'s checkins I have seen that d.rgb lives in the
"Attic" of CVS (most of other modules not).

Might the "Attic"-home of a module be an indicator for something has been
gone wrong?

Probably not; the Info file says:

   ... It should not matter from a user point of view whether a
  file is in the attic; CVS keeps track of this and looks in the attic
  when it needs to. But in case you want to know, the rule is that the
  RCS file is stored in the attic if and only if the head revision on the
  trunk has state `dead'. A `dead' state means that file has been
  removed, or never added, for that revision. For example, if you add a
  file on a branch, it will have a trunk revision in `dead' state, and a
  branch revision in a non-`dead' state.

d.rgb/main.c shouldn't exist at the head of the trunk, only on the
release branch so, according to the above, it should be in the attic.
The other files (d.rgb/Gmakefile and d.rgb/cmd/*) shouldn't be in the
attic.

Well, if the non-branch-tag elimination also removed this tag description
(while keeping the sources) I feel that neither "cvs log" nor "cvs status"
can see anything (as it is removed). Hopefully I am wrong.

Those commands won't tell you anything about the tag, but the actual
revision history is still there.

In case it's of any help, I'll "dump" a summary explanation of what I
understand regarding CVS tags.

Basically, every file has a revision "tree", with the individual
revisions and branches having numeric versions. Revisions on the trunk
have two-part versions (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, ...). If revisions are then
committed on a particular branch, they will have have versions which
start with the last version on the trunk.

Consider the file src/libes/gmath/Gmakefile as an example. The initial
commit was version 1.1. The first update was committed to the trunk,
and is version 1.2. At that point, a branch (1.2.4) was created (the
first branch, 1.2.2, never received any commits). Subsequent revisions
were committed to the branch, with versions 1.2.4.1, 1.2.4.2, ...,
1.2.4.5. At this point, I created the "august" branch (1.2.4.5.2,
which was a branch of the "april" branch), and committed my changes on
that, as version 1.2.4.5.2.1. Once the problems with the bogus "april"
tag were sorted out, I also committed the changes on the "april"
branch, as version 1.2.4.6 (these two versions are identical).

1.1 --> 1.2
        |
        +--> 1.2.4.1 --> 1.2.4.2 --> 1.2.4.3 --> 1.2.4.4 --> 1.2.4.5 --> 1.2.4.6
                                                             |
                                                             +--> 1.2.4.5.2.1

Symbolic tags serve to identify a "snapshot" of the repository,
identifying which versions of particular files belong together.

Tags are "static"; they are interpreted at the time a "cvs" command is
executed. No historical information is recorded for them. Tags are
converted to the appropriate numeric version for each file as the
command is run. When operating on a single file, you could always just
specify numeric versions instead. Operations on multiple files are
basically equivalent to many single-file operations, with the tag
converted to the appropriate numeric version for each file.

It is not clear to me *when* (Date) the non-branch tag
"releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0" has been applied. This may reduce the
number of log-lines to analyse (at time 250k lines).

I'm fairly sure that the problems all started at some point on
2001-09-09, although it's conceivable that it occurred late on the
8th.

cvs log -d '>2001-09-08 00:00' should catch everything that might have
been lost. Basically, you're looking for 2-part versions (1.x), which
indicate that a commit was made to the trunk.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

Glynn Clements wrote:

I'm fairly sure that the problems all started at some point on
2001-09-09, although it's conceivable that it occurred late on the
8th.

Duh; it's 2001-08-09.

cvs log -d '>2001-09-08 00:00' should catch everything that might have
been lost.

Ditto.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:28:01PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
[...]

I'm fairly sure that the problems all started at some point on
2001-09-09, although it's conceivable that it occurred late on the
8th.

[2001-08-09]

cvs log -d '>2001-09-08 00:00' should catch everything that might have
been lost. Basically, you're looking for 2-part versions (1.x), which
indicate that a commit was made to the trunk.

Thanks for looking into this. From checking

cvs log -d '>2001-08-09 00:00'

I receive the log. While looking at it, there are some 2-part versions
found, but they are immediately followed by a 3-part versions. This should
be o.k., see example below:

revision 1.1
date: 2001/08/23 12:28:23; author: markus; state: dead;
branches: 1.1.2;
file README.tcl was initially added on branch
releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0.
----------------------------
revision 1.1.2.1
date: 2001/08/23 12:28:23; author: markus; state: Exp; lines: +5 -0
added urls

So far I cannot detect any problem (I am still no specialist).
If anyone wants to look as well, the file is here:

http://grass.itc.it/cvs_diff/
  -> cvslog_24_aug_2001.gz

Shall we declare the problem as solved?

Thanks,

Markus

PS: just fixed ps.map which crashed on Redhat7.1.

Markus Neteler wrote:

> cvs log -d '>2001-09-08 00:00' should catch everything that might have
> been lost. Basically, you're looking for 2-part versions (1.x), which
> indicate that a commit was made to the trunk.

Thanks for looking into this. From checking

cvs log -d '>2001-08-09 00:00'

I receive the log. While looking at it, there are some 2-part versions
found, but they are immediately followed by a 3-part versions. This should
be o.k., see example below:

revision 1.1
date: 2001/08/23 12:28:23; author: markus; state: dead;
branches: 1.1.2;
file README.tcl was initially added on branch
releasebranch_11_april_2001_5_0_0.
----------------------------
revision 1.1.2.1
date: 2001/08/23 12:28:23; author: markus; state: Exp; lines: +5 -0
added urls

This is normal; the initial commit will always create version 1.1, in
addition to any branch versions.

So far I cannot detect any problem (I am still no specialist).
If anyone wants to look as well, the file is here:

I also looked into this. The only commits to the trunk were for the
GDAL changes, and AFAICT, these were all subsequently applied to the
release branch.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>