-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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-----
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
