[spambayes-dev] More CVS branch/tags questions
kennypitt at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 4 17:54:48 EST 2003
Mark Hammond wrote:
> I saw Skip raise this last week, but I think he was asking different
> My understanding is that we are moving towards 1.0 on the release_1_0
> branch. Is that correct?
> If so, I'm a little confused by this :) If we look at an edited log
> from sb_server, we see (Please see my comments/questions inline with
> "****", and at the end:
> RCS file: /cvsroot/spambayes/spambayes/scripts/sb_server.py,v
> Working file: sb_server.py
> head: 1.11
> symbolic names:
> release_1_0_a7: 126.96.36.199
> outlook-1-0-fork: 1.11
> release_1_0: 188.8.131.52
> release_1_0_a6: 1.6
> **** My reading of this is that this file was branched for 1.0 at 1.6.
> *** From my reading of this, the "1.0" release is missing a number of
> significant patches - all 1.7->1.11 checkings appear to *not* be on
> the 1.0 release.
> And very interestingly, note that 1.8 and 184.108.40.206 *both* claim to fix
> , and on the same day.
> I doubt this is the intention - I can't recall anyone deciding to fix
> real, verified bugs *after* the 1.0 release. Can anyone shed any
After looking at the full log, here is how I see it. Fixes 1.8 and
220.127.116.11 went in on the same day because that is the correct way to do
things at this stage. Fixes that apply to both the 1.0 and 1.1 releases
need to be made on both the branch and the trunk (because the current
state of those versions could be different at the time the fix is made).
Revs 1.7 and 1.10 are enhancements to the UI that came after the feature
freeze for 1.0, so were not applied to the branch. I'm not certain, but
I think 1.11 was a fix to a problem caused by the mods in rev 1.10.
Rev 1.9 is a bit gray. The problem definitely applies to 1.0, so would
probably make a reasonable fix to add to the 1.0 branch. On the other
hand, it is in a sense adding a "new" feature to prevent multiple
More information about the spambayes-dev