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
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() |