From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
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 15:27:16 |
Message-ID: | 4B8696D4.4020504@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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?
>
>
It should be fine.
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/notes/cvs/revisions.html> says:
**CVS, when assigning an initial version to a new file, doesn't
always assign 1.1. Instead, it finds the highest numbered revision
of any file in the same directory, takes the first digit, and
assigns a revision of <digit>.1 to new files. In other words, if you
have a file in the same directory that has a revision of 2.30, a new
file in that directory will get a revision number of 2.1, not 1.1.
For some unknown reason, we have some version 2.x files in doc/src/sgml:
<http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/>, which is
why
you saw this.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-25 15:37:59 | Re: NaN/Inf fix for ECPG |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-25 15:10:41 | Re: Recent vendor SSL renegotiation patches break PostgreSQL |