Re: anoncvs and diff

From: "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: anoncvs and diff
Date: 2002-10-03 16:02:07
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0210031657450.26902-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've been waiting to see how a patched file differs from my version.
> >
> > The patch was added to the to apply list last week I think (it wasn't mine btw)
> > and I've been doing cvs diff to view the differences so I can tell when the
> > patch has been applied. Additional information given by this is the revision
> > number the comparison is against of course. This has stayed at 1.61 all the
> > time I've been doing this cvs diff operation. Looking at the web interface to
> > cvs I see the file has a revision number of 1.64. I use the anoncvs server for
> > my operations. Am I being daft or is there a problem with the anoncvs archive?
>
> That is strange. anoncvs and the web interface should have the same
> version number. What file are you looking at?

src/pl/tcl/pltcl.c

However, since writing that I've tried some other things.

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.

--
Nigel J. Andrews

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-03 16:05:17 Re: anoncvs and diff
Previous Message Manfred Koizar 2002-10-03 15:58:06 Re: Correlation in cost_index()