From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can anyone correct the Bazaar reference "revno:111954.1.97"? Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 19:42:18 +0200 Message-ID: <83k3ccts3p.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20140301171337.53CC638073E@snark.thyrsus.com> <8338j1vkta.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvn17gbc.fsf@slice.rozzin.com> <83ppm5tfsg.fsf@gnu.org> <87ob1pywn7.fsf@slice.rozzin.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1393782163 16471 80.91.229.3 (2 Mar 2014 17:42:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:42:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, handa@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Joshua Judson Rosen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 02 18:42:51 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 1WKAPb-0001zt-51 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 18:42:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36210 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAPa-0006Va-Pu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59108) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAPT-0006QV-7q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAPN-00016a-Vz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:46843) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WKAPN-00015z-7u; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:42:37 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N1T00L00L2WQ100@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 19:42:35 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N1T00L9TL6YCH90@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 19:42:35 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87ob1pywn7.fsf@slice.rozzin.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 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:170054 Archived-At: > From: Joshua Judson Rosen > Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, handa@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:53:00 -0500 > > > > > > revno: 111954.1.4 > > > > > committer: K. Handa > > > > > branch nick: work > > > > > timestamp: Fri 2013-03-22 00:18:44 +0900 > > > > > message: > > > > > Fix a bug introduced by revno:111954.1.97 > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't show up in a bzr log --levels=0 listing, and the fact that > > > > > 97 > 4 suggests the reference is garbled. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > No, it isn't, IMO: they have different parents. > > They actually don't have different parents--they have the same revid, > and really _are_ the same revision-object. No, they haven't, and no, they aren't: ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 111964.1.6 revision-id: handa@gnu.org-20130315160354-jkntpv64yp0n0iql parent: handa@gnu.org-20130311090639-hslbvd6ot0k25lsn committer: K. Handa branch nick: work timestamp: Fri 2013-03-15 16:03:54 +0000 message: Optimize ASCII file reading with EOL format detection and decoding. ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 111964.1.7 [merge] revision-id: handa@gnu.org-20130315160447-x6zr5fjm1ez02upn parent: handa@gnu.org-20130315160354-jkntpv64yp0n0iql parent: michael.albinus@gmx.de-20130315141906-e85ws6zvzcq6wk75 committer: K. Handa branch nick: work timestamp: Fri 2013-03-15 16:04:47 +0000 message: merge trunk ------------------------------------------------------------ revno: 112051 [merge] revision-id: handa@gnu.org-20130315160612-scmr21as4wy0g99w parent: michael.albinus@gmx.de-20130315141906-e85ws6zvzcq6wk75 parent: handa@gnu.org-20130315160447-x6zr5fjm1ez02upn committer: K. Handa branch nick: trunk timestamp: Fri 2013-03-15 16:06:12 +0000 message: Optimize ASCII file reading with EOL format detection and decoding. ------------------------------------------------------------ Bazaar is deeply branch-centric, and distinguishes between a "regular" commit and its merge-commit. > On Eric's spectrum between "philosophical" and "serious can of worms", > I'd say the severity of picking the wrong one of these two revisions > to associate with "the bug" in Handa's later commit-comment is > a lot closer to "philosophical" than to "serious can of worms"..., > but you can verify that Handa's "revno:111954.1.97" must have > referred to trunk revno 112051: I really don't see a problem, since, as can be seen from the above, the time stamps of each of these 3 revisions are different. > > Unless you are saying that Handa-san used two different branches that > > both forked at trunk r111954 > > Well, yes: it looks like Handa was using both "trunk" and a separate > "work" branch, and merging back and forth between the two. No, I meant 2 branches _in_addition_ to the trunk. > Handa wrote "Fix bug introduced by revno:111954.1.97" into a commit > at "work 111958". > > The same "do something in `work' and the merge trunk into `work'" > cycle was repeated a couple more times on "work", up to "work 111961". > > Then "work" was merged back into trunk at trunk revno 112229 > (where "work 111957" became "trunk 111954.1.3", "work 111958" > became "trunk 111954.1.4", etc.). > > If you separate that "work" branch back out of trunk so that you can > look at the log "from work's perspective", then all of the numbers match > up with how Handa would have seen them when he wrote the comment that > tripped Eric up; you can go look the commit-objects up, get their > revids, and verify that "work 111954.1.97" is the same object as > "trunk 112051". No matter what was done with the "work" branch, the count of its revisions is strictly increasing, and so .1.97 cannot possible precede .1.4. > > I don't see how .1.97 can come before .1.4 on the same branch. > > Of course--they weren't on the same branch. Then there must be a third branch, in addition to trunk and "work", and that 3rd branch must have been forked from trunk at the same revision 111954. That's what I said. > This is why I say that, when Handa wrote "111954.1.97" in his "work" branch, > the revision that he was referencing was in fact "trunk 112051". Can't happen with just 2 branches, AFAIU. > Same node in the DAG, addressed differently by observers sitting at > different points in the DAG. As I show above, they aren't the same nodes in the DAG.