RELENG_6_1

[Scott Long]

Rong-En Fan wrote:

> On 4/8/06, Scott Long <scottl at samsco.org> wrote:
> 
>>Rong-En Fan wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>According to the webpage [1], 6.1 has been branched on April 5. However,
>>>I noticed that there is a tag called RELENG_6_1, not a branch called
>>>RELENG_6_1. For example, sys/conf/newvers.sh [2], rev 1.69.2.11,
>>>is on RELENG_6 branch with tag RELENG_6_1_BP and RELENG_6_1.
>>>
>>>It is a bit strange for me. At least, we have RELENG_X_Y branch before
>>>and RELENG_X_Y_BP tag. Is there any special reason that we have
>>>a tag instead of a branch for 6.1?
>>
>>RELENG_6_1 is a branch tag (or at least it should have been unless I
>>screwed it up).  The _BP tag always comes before the branch tag.  I
>>just checked CVS and it appears to agree with this.  Can you give an
>>example of what is wrong?
> 
> 
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh
> 
> When 6.0 is branched and moves to RC, it shows
> 
> Revision 1.69.2.8 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Sun
> Oct 9 16:59:34 2005 UTC (5 months, 4 weeks ago) by scottl
> Branch: RELENG_6
> CVS Tags: RELENG_6_0_BP
> Branch point for: RELENG_6_0
> 
> When 6.1 moves to RC, it shows
> 
> Revision 1.69.2.11 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Sat
> Apr 8 14:42:23 2006 UTC (9 hours, 9 minutes ago) by scottl
> Branch: RELENG_6
> CVS Tags: RELENG_6_1_BP, RELENG_6_1
> 
> I expected to see something like the case for 6.0. I didn't see a
> branch point for: RELENG_6_1 here. Did I miss something
> or cvsweb shows the wrong information?
> 
> Hope we can see 6.1 RELEASE soon :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Rong-En Fan

CVS treats branches as tags with special properties.  You won't
see what you're expecting until there is another commit to that
file.  What is probably confusing you is that I cheated and slid
the tag on newvers.sh after I did the commit, since I meant to do
the commit before the tag.

Scott