Re: Odd CVS revision number

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Odd CVS revision number
Date: 2010-02-25 14:46:49
Message-ID: 2896.1267109209@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I just noticed that the revision numbering for the new
> src/doc/sgml/recovery-config.sgml file I added started from 2 for some
> reason. The first revision was 2.1, and when I just updated it the new
> revision became 2.2.

> It seems to work fine, but I've never seen CVS revision numbers like
> that before. Anyone have a clue what might've caused that? Will that
> cause confusion?

No, CVS does that sometimes. If you root around in the manual you can
find an explanation of how it chooses the initial revision number, but
I don't recall the triggering condition offhand. We have several other
files that have 2.x version numbers for no particular reason except CVS
felt like assigning one.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2010-02-25 14:59:53 Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-02-25 14:27:25 Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL