First, thanks a lot Jim!!! Really!!!! I still prefer this picture since it "shows" that branch_b is off branch_a, even though WE all know now that they're equivalent.
> +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ > | 1.1 |----| 1.2 |----| 1.3 |---- ... > +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ > | > branch_a > | > branch_b -chris -----Original Message----- From: Jim.Hyslop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 11:28 AM To: Fouts Christopher (); Jim.Hyslop; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Branching bug ??? (was Re: Bug is tagging the head of a branch head???) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This picture that you drew for me! :) > > +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ > | 1.1 |----| 1.2 |----| 1.3 |---- ... > +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ > | > branch_a > | > branch_b OK, what if we modify it slightly to go along with the explanation I posted earlier: +-----+ +-----+ +----------+ | 1.1 |----| 1.2 |----| 1.3 |---- ... +-----+ +-----+ | branch_a | | branch_b | +----------+ Better? Worse? -- Jim Hyslop Senior Software Designer Leitch Technology International Inc. (http://www.leitch.com) Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com/experts) _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
