Re: cvs log -rtag_at_base_of_branch::tag_on_branch fails

[Veda Larson Palmer]

Is anyone covering for Larry while he's on vacation?  Thanks!  -Veda

> I'm on vacation and won't be able to read my mail until I return on
> Monday, August 12.  If you need something sooner, please call
> +1-513-576-2070 and leave voice mail.
> 
> -Larry Jones

-----Original Message-----
Date: 31 Jul 2002 17:52:29 -0700
From: Veda Larson Palmer <veda.palmer@pfizer.com>
To: lawrence.jones@eds.com
CC: bug-cvs@gnu.org
In-reply-to: <200207270447.AAA25364@thor.sdrc.com> (lawrence.jones@eds.com)
Subject: Re: cvs log -rtag_at_base_of_branch::tag_on_branch fails

Hi Larry,

Thanks for your quick response.

As far as I can tell, both our client and server are at 1.11.2:

% cvs version
Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.11.2 (client/server)

I get the same behavior in both local and pserver mode.
On our pserver host,

% grep cvs /etc/inetd.conf
cvspserver stream tcp nowait acl /usr/bin/cvs cvs -f --allow-root=/pgrd/ljdev/cv
sroot pserver
% /usr/bin/cvs version
Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.11.2 (client/server)

Interestingly, the same revision pair works with cvs diff/rdiff -rv1_0 -rv1_1
(but the output of diff doesn't make very nice release notes ;).

Are you unable to reproduce this behavior in cvs log with your 1.11.2
installation?

Thanks,
-Veda

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: cvs log -rtag_at_base_of_branch::tag_on_branch fails
To: veda.palmer@pfizer.com
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 00:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: bug-cvs@gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <200207262118.OAA13689@bugs.agouron.com> from 
"veda.palmer@pfizer.com" at Jul 26, 2 02:18:09 pm
From: lawrence.jones@eds.com (Larry Jones)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

veda.palmer@pfizer.com writes:
> 
> % cvs log -N -rv1_0::v1_1 foo
> cvs server: invalid branch or revision pair v1_0:v1_1 in 
> `/pgrd/ljdev/cvsroot/TE
> STME/foo,v'

Upgrade your server to CVS 1.11.2.  For future reference, "cvs version"
will give you both the client and server version numbers.

-Larry Jones

Yep, we'd probably be dead by now if it wasn't for Twinkies. -- Calvin