From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric S. Raymond" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"? Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 17:02:07 -0500 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs Message-ID: <20140301220207.GC19461@thyrsus.com> References: <20140301171337.53CC638073E@snark.thyrsus.com> <8338j1vkta.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvn17gbc.fsf@slice.rozzin.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393711336 14611 80.91.229.3 (1 Mar 2014 22:02:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 22:02:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: handa@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Joshua Judson Rosen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 01 23:02:25 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJrzD-0002TW-K3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:02:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60980 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJrzD-0001WO-15 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:02:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51086) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJrz6-0001Va-LQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:02:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJrz2-0000OV-Jt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:02:16 -0500 Original-Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:34362 helo=snark.thyrsus.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJryy-0000MW-14; Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:02:08 -0500 Original-Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5FD8138073E; Sat, 1 Mar 2014 17:02:07 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fvn17gbc.fsf@slice.rozzin.com> X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 71.162.243.5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:170033 Archived-At: Joshua Judson Rosen : > > I think the correct reference is 111964.1.6. It was merged in > > r112051. > > ... and the "revno:111954.1.97" was a reference to trunk revno:112051. > > The fact that the commit whose comment is making that reference is itself > from a non-mainline branch suggests that the reference may actually > not be garbled, but rather be from an obsolete context. > > The "111954.1.97" revno is actually correct relative to the "111954.1.4" > commit and Handa's "work branch" (where it would have been 111954+4=11958; > if you do "bzr branch trunk -r 111954.1.4 handa-work" and then do > "bzr log -r 111954.1.97 --show-ids handa-work", this starts to become clear). Oh, crap. Now I'm confused about what to replace that revno with. The alternatives are: 111964.1.6 2013-03-15T16:03:54Z!handa@gnu.org 112051 2013-03-15T16:06:12Z!handa@gnu.org It's only a difference in timestamp. Do they have the same content? If not, serious can of worms. If so, the qustion of which timestamp to consider authoritative becomes more philosophical. -- Eric S. Raymond