Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Include file in regress.c
Date: 2006-09-22 11:09:42
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA356F7@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> > Strangely, if I try to do a "cvs add gram.c", it fails with cvs
> add:
> > `gram.c' added independently by second party I don't know what
> this
> > means. (Why "second party" and not "third party"?). Even if I
> delete
> > gram.c. Even if I remove it from .cvsignore.
>
> I think "cvs add" probably contacts the server, because I seem to
> recall that it gives different output depending on whether the file
> already exists on another branch, and there's no way to tell that
> from your local working directory contents.
>
> The CVS history for gram.c looks a bit confused:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/parser
> /Attic/gram.c
> How did revisions 2.89 and 2.90 come into existence when the file
> was already cvs-removed? This may be confusing the server too.

That definitely looks weird to me. Unfortunatly, it's way above me wrt
CVS knowledge. I'm just going to have to live with it and remember to
delete that part from my diffs... (It's not so hard, because it's
several megabytes each time, and I don't normally produce patches that
large..)

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2006-09-22 11:37:07 Re: pg_upgrade: downgradebility
Previous Message Joachim Wieland 2006-09-22 11:06:35 Timezone doc patch

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-22 14:02:33 Re: WIP: Hierarchical Queries - stage 1
Previous Message Joachim Wieland 2006-09-22 11:06:35 Timezone doc patch