[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?
From: |
Joshua Judson Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"? |
Date: |
Sat, 01 Mar 2014 22:47:52 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) |
"Eric S. Raymond" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Oh, crap. Now I'm confused about what to replace that revno with. The
> alternatives are:
>
> 111964.1.6 2013-03-15T16:03:address@hidden
> 112051 2013-03-15T16:06:address@hidden
Eeek--sorry, I really meant that more as an FYI for anyone who was
already confused. "Don't Panic".
> It's only a difference in timestamp. Do they have the same content?
> If not, serious can of worms. If so, the qustion of which timestamp
> to consider authoritative becomes more philosophical.
It does look like the merge (112051) is indeed `just a merge'.
Actually going through and comparing the diffs ("bzr diff -c 112051"
vs. "bzr diff -c 11964.1.6"), the diffs off the two revisions are
identical except for slight differences in context, and that's explained
by the fact that 112051 looks like this:
$ bzr log --line -r 112051 -n0
112051: K. Handa 2013-03-16 [merge] Optimize ASCII file reading...
111964.1.7: K. Handa 2013-03-16 [merge] merge trunk
111964.1.6: K. Handa 2013-03-16 Optimize ASCII file reading...
111964.1.5: K. Handa 2013-03-11 [merge] merge trunk
i.e.: the only thing that's at all different between the two
_changes_ is a slight difference in context, due to their different
positions in the DAG. Had the "Optimize ASCII file reading..."
change happened _after_ the second "merge trunk" (11964.1.7)
instead of before it, then I do think even the diff contexts
would be the same (the revision that 11964.1.7 was merging into
Handa's "work" branch was trunk 12050).
--
"'tis an ill wind that blows no minds."
- Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/01
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/01
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/01
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Joshua Judson Rosen, 2014/03/01
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/03/01
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?,
Joshua Judson Rosen <=
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/02
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Andreas Schwab, 2014/03/02
- Policy on referencing/abbreviating git commit-IDs, going forward? (was: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?), Joshua Judson Rosen, 2014/03/02
- Re: Policy on referencing/abbreviating git commit-IDs, going forward?, Andreas Schwab, 2014/03/02
- Re: Policy on referencing/abbreviating git commit-IDs, going forward?, Joshua Judson Rosen, 2014/03/02
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/02
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Andreas Schwab, 2014/03/02
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/01
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/01
- Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"?, Joshua Judson Rosen, 2014/03/02