Re: Odd CVS revision number

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Odd CVS revision number
Date: 2010-02-25 15:27:16
Message-ID: 4B8696D4.4020504@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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 numbered revision
of any file in the same directory, takes the first digit, and
assigns a revision of <digit>.1 to new files. In other words, if you
have a file in the same directory that has a revision of 2.30, a new
file in that directory will 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-02-25 15:37:59 Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-02-25 15:10:41 Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL