bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Feature request/ideas


From: Mark D. Baushke
Subject: Re: Feature request/ideas
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:46:31 -0800

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Derek Price <address@hidden> writes:

> No.  I think 0.next would be an invalid construct, or also return 0.

Yeah, you are correct.

> If you take this off the trunk, this might make more sense:
> BRANCH.root is on the trunk (or another branch), so BRANCH.root.next
> would return the revision following the root revision on the parent.
> For example, 1.2.2.7.root would return 1.2.  Since 1.2.next yields
> 1.3, then 1.2.2.7.root.next should also yield 1.3.

Yup.

> 
> Since there is no revision following on the `0 branch',
> .trunk.root.next should either also be 0 or be invalid.

Agreed. Given that 1.2.2.7.root == 1.2 which is the predicessor revision
to the first revision on the branch, and .trunk being on the TRUNK, then
.trunk.root is the predicessor revision for the TRUNK also known as `0'.

Therefore, I suppose that there could be a need for .origin to be the
first revision on TRUNK and .trunk.head to replace HEAD on TRUNK.

Looking at a mixture of the modifiers with regard to time...

One presumes that '.trunk:2005-03-01 08:00:00 UTC' would be the revision
that was committed just before 2005-03-01 08:00:00 UTC. It is less clear
how one would specify the .next revision on the TRUNK for that case...

        -- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFCJ1uH3x41pRYZE/gRAsoZAKCfPuDJHWrt+y3Qtwk2AfGe9inw1ACgyQub
/m83ZvvHmEFzVQtDX8fo78k=
=2HUw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]