From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mansfield Subject: Re: gitweb wishlist Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 00:28:14 -0400 Message-ID: <4292AD5E.3000106@cobite.com> References: <20050511012626.GL26384@pasky.ji.cz> <1116384951.5094.83.camel@dhcp-188.off.vrfy.org> <1116611932.12975.22.camel@dhcp-188> <1116615600.12975.33.camel@dhcp-188> <428E49DD.406@zytor.com> <428E4D8C.3020606@zytor.com> <1116626652.12975.118.camel@dhcp-188> <428E745C.30304@zytor.com> <4292A08A.5050108@cobite.com> <4292A1F2.7020606@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kay Sievers , Petr Baudis , Thomas Glanzmann , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 24 06:29:55 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DaR1d-0003PZ-JJ for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 24 May 2005 06:28:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261204AbVEXE3s (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 00:29:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261251AbVEXE3s (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 00:29:48 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-03-smtplb.rdc-nyc.rr.com ([24.29.109.7]:65244 "EHLO ms-smtp-03.rdc-nyc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261204AbVEXE3n (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2005 00:29:43 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.103] (cpe-66-65-159-236.nyc.res.rr.com [66.65.159.236]) by ms-smtp-03.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id j4O4SnGi003529; Tue, 24 May 2005 00:28:49 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <4292A1F2.7020606@zytor.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org H. Peter Anvin wrote: > David Mansfield wrote: > >> >> Ok. I'll tell you. It means that the committer uses bad practices in >> tagging ;-) It generally means that force tag (cvs tag -F ) was >> used on a specific file. Here's the scenario: >> >> cvsps is trying to associate a tag to a specific commit. But in the >> cvs world this is not always at all possible. If, for example, a >> commit made and all files are tagged. Now some random file is >> modified and committed. Then, a bug is found in a file from the >> previously tagged set, say the file 'memdisk/init32.asm'. The bug is >> fixed, committed and the tag is MOVED for _just that file_ forward to >> the new version. Now there is no commit that can be associated with >> the tag. In this case, cvsps believes this to be a 'FUNKY' tag. >> There is a more pathological case having to do with 'INVALID' tags... >> It's enough to make a grown man cry. >> > > This is only pathological if the tag now represents a state that never > actually existed in the history of the repository. I don't believe > there are any such cases in the syslinux repository; I could be wrong, > but I am *highly* sceptical. > I didn't mean that YOUR repository had more pathological stuff in it, just that SOME do. 'FUNKY' tags are not really that bad, it's just that there is not a single commit to assign them to (i.e. at no point were all of the objects in the repository at that state simultaneously), which makes the import of such a tag difficult into a more commit oriented system. Another way to reach 'funky'ness is to modify a file, commit and tag, without having done a 'cvs update' first (and a colleague has done a commit since your last 'cvs update') David