[MPlayer-cvslog] CVS: main ChangeLog,1.88,1.89

[Rich Felker]

On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 06:49:24PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 12:24:51PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 02:37:31AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Saturday 06 August 2005 02:12, Ivo wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 06 August 2005 02:06, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > hmm, what about commiting this with 'cvs commit -r1.236' ? or am i
> > > > > missunderstanding the cvs docs?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it seems it's also available for cvs commit.
> > > >
> > > > > either way, 1.89 will cause problems for people who have 1.236 currently
> > > > > i think
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, but on my machine those files (Changelog, README...) had no problems
> > > > going back to 1.88 and 1.16 after the cvs server got back up. What do you
> > > > suggest, revert and recommit with -r? 
> > > 
> > > IMHO yes, but id wait for someone else (alex, rich, ?) to confirm that thats a 
> > > good idea
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > What about the gap of missing 
> > > > revisions? Can cvs cope with that?
> > > 
> > > AFAIK yes
> > > and theres also the problem with restoring the lost revissions from cvslog, if 
> > > we do that later then we will have a real mess if we "reuse" versions
> > 
> > i agree it's a good idea! recommit with correct version number. then
> > we can fill in the missing versions if we recover them.
> 
> Has any of you actually looked at the RCS files in order to fix them up?
> I have, so I request you guys to trust me when I say that it is not
> worth the trouble to mess up the revision numbers now to prepare them to
> be maybe fixed someday.  Integrating the new revisions into the repaired
> RCS file is no problem at all and will only take a few minutes should it
> ever be done.

i am strongly against having the same revision number refer to two
different files. it's the same principle as you have with cvs admin
-o, it's fundamentally bad.

rich