Re: Commit (JMM-DOUBLEGRAPHICS-1): merge from head 1/2

From: Mark Gilbert <mg_abimail_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Dec 29 2004 - 18:55:56 CET

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 12:45 -0500, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-12-25 at 00:53 +0100, J.M. Maurer wrote:
> > MG: could you check if i didn't screw anything up while fixing the merge
> > errors, before i 'fix' more? Don't know if I should have tagging
> > something or not ...
>
>
> Since I never got any reply from the dude who branched (MG for that

Actually, you did, and you even sent a followup in response, with no new
questions.

> matter) about which branchpoint tag, etc, I took the initiative, quickly
> after recieving this e-mail to tagg HEAD branch with
> JMM-DOUBLEGRAPHICS-1_lastmerge to define
> the last time merge from HEAD was done.

We are already using jmm_doublegraphics_1_priorsync, which you
explicitly acknowledged in your prior messages. I would ask others to
please ignore this tag, as it is not updated with syncronization - the
jmm_doublegraphics_1_priorsync tag is.

> What do next time for merging ?
>
> $cvs rtag -rHEAD JMM-DOUBLEGRAPHICS-1_merging abi

That will not work in any case, as you've left out options to account
for the fact that you are moving an existing tag (you just said you
already created it), namely -F. You might want to put a little more
care into these messages.

> then in the sandbox for the JMM-DOUBLEGRAPHICS-1
>
> $cvs update -jJMM-DOUBLEGRAPHICS-1_lastmerge\
> -jJMM-DOUBLEGRAPHICS-1_merging
>

Except that the latter tag is entirely abstract. I haven't seen it so
much as mentioned _anywhere_ prior. Currently, we syncronize using
HEAD, since the priorsync tag is also on HEAD, and it works perfectly.
I see no reason to change this, considering that what you've written
makes no sense and would only result in cvs aborting with an error
message.

[...]

> If you have question don't hesitate to ask for help. I'll be happy to
> help, answer proper questions.

As would I, I'm always willing to answer proper questions. NB: "wtf"
does not generally convey a proper or answerable question. But
otherwise...

-MG
Received on Wed Dec 29 18:59:18 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 29 2004 - 18:59:18 CET