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

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 12:55 -0500, Mark Gilbert wrote:
> 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.

Because you did not answer the previous one. The question where clear:

What is the tag for the branchpoint?
What is the "lastmerge" tag ?
What is jmm_doublegraphics_1_priorsync ?
How is done the merge, because Marc talked about some automatic stuff,
without being sure.

None of these question were answered.

>
> > 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 asked WTF it was. You never dared to reply.

> I would ask others to
> please ignore this tag, as it is not updated with syncronization - the
> jmm_doublegraphics_1_priorsync tag is.

Since Marc did not update it, who did it ?

>
> > 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.

Re-read. This the _merging tag, not the _lastmerge tag.

>
> > 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.

See above.

> 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.

You make no sense. You merge between a tag I still don't know what it
is, and some arbitrary state of the tree.

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

But apparently you didn't read the e-mail. Put your ego away please.
AbiWord is not YOUR toy. It is a work together, and for that reason we
must be clear about what we do.

Hub

-- 
Crazy French - http://www.figuiere.net/hub/