Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:27:35 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] libreadline buildworld breakage. Message-ID: <20041022002734.GB82964@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20041022001859.GA22896@gothmog.gr> References: <20041021085653.GA67949@nagual.pp.ru> <E1CKZ63-000PGP-00@hetzner.co.za> <20041021093306.GA68546@nagual.pp.ru> <20041021190115.GC37500@dragon.nuxi.com> <20041021231013.GA79336@nagual.pp.ru> <20041022001859.GA22896@gothmog.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 03:18:59AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > Step 2) seems weird. It's probably because of the `branch: 1.1.1;' line > in the RCS header of the complete.c,v file. Has this been added > manually to force complete.c back into the vendor branch? As I already mention, there was some CVS surgery happens before to return files to the vendor branch, which was backed out later by peter, but apparently still hits. > modifies it, a conflict might not show up but a cvs update -j VENDOR and > a subsequent commit might still be required to pull up changes from the > vendor branch into HEAD. Some of those changes might not conflict with Of course, I do cvs update -j VENDOR, but its merge is equal to conflicts shown, i.e. single file readline.h -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041022002734.GB82964>