Re: cvs log and initial revision line counts
Ville Herva wrote: Urmhh, I should have just deleted the sentence as it is clear I was unable to write it unambiguosly. To reiterate, this is what I ment: even you could cook up the patch: you = me, Ville Herva, the author of _this_ and the previous mail seasoned CVS hacker = other people, perhaps including Larry Jones and others (I admit I wasn't 100% sure Larry Jones was one of those, but I kind of addumed that). Again, sorry for the inconvenience, and sorry if I insulted someone. I apologize for the misunderstanding. -Matt ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
cvs log and initial revision line counts
[please cc me] Is there a reason for that cvs log always shows the line counts for the initial revisions as +0 -0? revision 1.1.1.1 date: 2001/03/16 07:10:50; author: vherva; state: Exp; lines: +0 -0 Initial import of linux backup scripts. It would make more sense to me that it would show for example '+112 -0' for a 112-line file. Not that it's hugely important, but it confuses my statistic scripts. -- v -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: cvs log and initial revision line counts
Ville Herva writes: Is there a reason for that cvs log always shows the line counts for the initial revisions as +0 -0? It doesn't -- it doesn't show line counts at all for the initial revision. revision 1.1.1.1 date: 2001/03/16 07:10:50; author: vherva; state: Exp; lines: +0 -0 Initial import of linux backup scripts. That's not the initial revision -- that's the first revision on a branch. Normally, the first revision on a branch would show non-zero line counts; the reason it doesn't is because of the special handling of the vendor branch -- its first revision is identical to the first revision on the trunk, so the line counts are correct. (You would see the same thing if you forced a commit to a new branch without making any changes.) It would make more sense to me that it would show for example '+112 -0' for a 112-line file. Not that it's hugely important, but it confuses my statistic scripts. If people want CVS to show line counts for the real initial revision, it wouldn't be too difficult to add. -Larry Jones There's a connection here, I just know it. -- Calvin ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: cvs log and initial revision line counts
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 12:15:15PM -0400, you [Larry Jones] claimed: It doesn't -- it doesn't show line counts at all for the initial revision. Ummh, my mistake. I've been meaning to write this email for long (since I noticed I couldn't get the statistics script to report new file line counts), and now that I did it, I didn't check the actual problem carefully enough. The actual problem still remains, I think it would be more consistent to report the line counts for all revisions. If people want CVS to show line counts for the real initial revision, it wouldn't be too difficult to add. It think it would be nice and more consistent. The only problem I see that if someone has worked around the lack of line numbers in a statistic script, that might break. BTW: is that not too difficult to add to be taken as even you¹ could cook up the patch or easy enough for a seasoned CVS hacker -- v -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¹ you = the author of this mail (to avoid ambiguity) ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: cvs log and initial revision line counts
Ville Herva wrote: If people want CVS to show line counts for the real initial revision, it wouldn't be too difficult to add. It think it would be nice and more consistent. The only problem I see that if someone has worked around the lack of line numbers in a statistic script, that might break. Conversely, you could work around this inconsistency w/o breaking all of those scripts. BTW: is that not too difficult to add to be taken as even you¹ could cook up the patch or easy enough for a seasoned CVS hacker -- v -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ¹ you = the author of this mail (to avoid ambiguity) To resolve your ignorance, Larry Jones is one of those seasoned CVS hackers. -Matt ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
Re: cvs log and initial revision line counts
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 02:57:15PM -0400, you [Matt Riechers] claimed: Conversely, you could work around this inconsistency w/o breaking all of those scripts. Sure, that would could be workable as well. Do you have any ideas as to how I could work around that reliably? BTW: is that not too difficult to add to be taken as even you¹ could cook up the patch or easy enough for a seasoned CVS hacker ¹ you = the author of this mail (to avoid ambiguity) To resolve your ignorance, Larry Jones is one of those seasoned CVS hackers. Urmhh, I should have just deleted the sentence as it is clear I was unable to write it unambiguosly. To reiterate, this is what I ment: even you could cook up the patch: you = me, Ville Herva, the author of _this_ and the previous mail seasoned CVS hacker = other people, perhaps including Larry Jones and others (I admit I wasn't 100% sure Larry Jones was one of those, but I kind of addumed that). Again, sorry for the inconvenience, and sorry if I insulted someone. -- v -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
