Re: state of the 2.6.13 transition

On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:03:32PM +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 00:30 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 16:14 -0700, Matthew Reimer wrote:
> > > One more detail: I think the breakage relates to files that exist only on 
> > > the 
> > > vendor branch; i.e., files that we haven't modified from upstream.
> > 
> > Yeah, exactly.  This all stems from the fact that CVS only tracks
> > changes on a file-by-file basis: it doesn't have any understanding of
> > the relationships between different files.
> > 
> > CVS considers the HEAD to be a derivate of the vendor branch, which is
> > reasonable enough in itself. Unfortunately, the way it implements this
> > is that, for files that have never been modified in our tree, the tip of
> > the vendor branch "shows through" into the HEAD.
> 
> Would it be possible to fix this by creating a new branch
> starting with the last known good version, then
> making that branch the default? Something like:
>   cvs update -d -r K2-6-12-hh3
>   cvs tag -b NEW-TRUNC
>   cvs admin -bNEW-TRUNC
> 
> Just a thought...

Or we could check out two trees, HEAD and K2-6-12-hh3. Diff between the
two. Apply the diff to the HEAD tree and commit. That should clear it
up.

E

-- 
Erik Hovland
mail: erik AT hovland DOT org
web: http://hovland.org/
PGP/GPG public key available on request