[Python-Dev] Re: Preparing 2.0.1

[Barry A. Warsaw]

>>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:

Thanks for the explanation Thomas, that's exactly how I manage the
Mailman trees too.  A couple of notes.

    TW> I keep the Mailman 2.0.x and 2.1 (head) branches in two
    TW> different directories, the 2.0-branch one checked out with:

    TW> cvs -d twouters@cvs.mailman.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/mailman
    TW> co -r \ Release_2_0_1-branch mailman; mv mailman mailman-2.0.x
----------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If I had to do it over again, I would have called this the
Release_2_0-maint branch.  I think that makes more sense when you see
the Release_2_0_X tags along that branch.

This was really my first foray back into CVS branches after my last
disaster (the string-meths branch on Python).  Things are working much
better this time, so I guess I understand how to use them now...

...except that I hit a small problem with CVS.  When I was ready to
release a new patch release along the maintenance branch, I wasn't
able to coax CVS into giving me a log between two tags on the branch.
E.g. I tried:

    cvs log -rRelease_2_0_1 -rRelease_2_0_2

(I don't actually remember at the moment whether it's specified like
this or with a colon between the release tags, but that's immaterial).

The resulting log messages did not include any of the changes between
those two branches.  However a "cvs diff" between the two tags /did/
give me the proper output, as did a "cvs log" between the branch tag
and the end of the branch.

Could have been a temporary glitch in CVS or maybe I was dipping into
the happy airplane pills a little early.  I haven't tried it again
since.

took-me-about-three-hours-to-explain-this-to-jeremy-on-the-way-to-ipc9
    -but-the-happy-airplane-pills-were-definitely-partying-in-my
    -bloodstream-at-the-time-ly y'rs,

-Barry