From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 9 00:03:51 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E671C16A403 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 00:03:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1BA43D46 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2006 00:03:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3903ndK020306; Sat, 8 Apr 2006 18:03:49 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44384F65.4060007@samsco.org> Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 18:03:49 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rong-En Fan References: <6eb82e0604081602u314fd213lf628319174d383e2@mail.gmail.com> <44384B77.8010006@samsco.org> <6eb82e0604081658m74f2f15ata6e624cfa71c1aa1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6eb82e0604081658m74f2f15ata6e624cfa71c1aa1@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RELENG_6_1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 00:03:52 -0000 Rong-En Fan wrote: > On 4/8/06, Scott Long wrote: > >>Rong-En Fan wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>According to the webpage [1], 6.1 has been branched on April 5. However, >>>I noticed that there is a tag called RELENG_6_1, not a branch called >>>RELENG_6_1. For example, sys/conf/newvers.sh [2], rev 1.69.2.11, >>>is on RELENG_6 branch with tag RELENG_6_1_BP and RELENG_6_1. >>> >>>It is a bit strange for me. At least, we have RELENG_X_Y branch before >>>and RELENG_X_Y_BP tag. Is there any special reason that we have >>>a tag instead of a branch for 6.1? >> >>RELENG_6_1 is a branch tag (or at least it should have been unless I >>screwed it up). The _BP tag always comes before the branch tag. I >>just checked CVS and it appears to agree with this. Can you give an >>example of what is wrong? > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh > > When 6.0 is branched and moves to RC, it shows > > Revision 1.69.2.8 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Sun > Oct 9 16:59:34 2005 UTC (5 months, 4 weeks ago) by scottl > Branch: RELENG_6 > CVS Tags: RELENG_6_0_BP > Branch point for: RELENG_6_0 > > When 6.1 moves to RC, it shows > > Revision 1.69.2.11 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Sat > Apr 8 14:42:23 2006 UTC (9 hours, 9 minutes ago) by scottl > Branch: RELENG_6 > CVS Tags: RELENG_6_1_BP, RELENG_6_1 > > I expected to see something like the case for 6.0. I didn't see a > branch point for: RELENG_6_1 here. Did I miss something > or cvsweb shows the wrong information? > > Hope we can see 6.1 RELEASE soon :-) > > Thanks, > Rong-En Fan CVS treats branches as tags with special properties. You won't see what you're expecting until there is another commit to that file. What is probably confusing you is that I cheated and slid the tag on newvers.sh after I did the commit, since I meant to do the commit before the tag. Scott