>> i'm obviously doing a very bad job of convincing you that i'm not
>> completely confused.  perhaps what i'm searching for is that last
>> epsilon version of -current that was 1.3x from which 1.4A and
>> 1.4-release sprang.  if had a better name for it, i'd use that.  but i
>> don't.
>
>the last version of -current that was 1.3x from which both 1.4A and
>the netbsd-1-4 (release) branch sprang is the version of the source
>tree tagged netbsd-1-4-base.

yeah...that.

>I dunno which letter it had, but that's not specific enough to
>describe the very last version anyway.

  % cvs log syssrc/sys/conf/osrelease.sh
  ...
  ----------------------------
  revision 1.16
  date: 1999/04/02 02:57:55;  author: perry;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
  Update trunk to NetBSD 1.4A
  ----------------------------
  revision 1.15
  date: 1999/03/02 08:04:06;  author: sommerfe;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
  branches:  1.15.2;
  Welcome to 1.3K (due to the lock.h change)
  ----------------------------
  ...

looks like K to me.  but i'm just trying for easy points here.  :)

>> okay.  then netbsd-1-4-base is the name i'm looking for, but never
>> actually used, since it's a cvs tag, and not a version tag (like 1.4,
>> 1.4.1, and 1.4G are).
>
>Right.  There is _no_ 'version name' (please don't say tag 8-) to name
>that common ancestor, only the CVS tag.

(sorry :) yeah, no name.  hence my problems in describing what i was
talking about (why does this always happen to me?).

>[ to add back some context that you trimmed... ]
>
>1.4A is netbsd-1-4-base + some set "X" of changes.
>1.4B is netbsd-1-4-base + some set "Y" of changes.
>1.4 is netbsd-1-4-base + some set "Z" of changes.
>
>X is a proper subset of Y.
>
>That is the only relationship between those sets of changes.
>
>> >X is a proper subset of Y.
>> >
>> >That is the only relationship between those sets of changes.
>> 
>> and Z?  Z is a set of some members of X and some members of Y (albeit
>> retrofitted), and some other fixes.  no?
>
>Yes.  In other words, no well defined relationship.  Z is not a subset
>of X or Y, it's not a superset of either of them, it's not equal to
>either of them, and in fact it's not even a sub- or superset of or
>equal to X + Y.

right Z is a set of a subset of X and a subset of Y and some other
stuff not in X or Y.

   +-------------+
   | +---------+ |
   | |    +---------------+
   | |    |    | |    Z   |
   | |    +---------------+
   | |  X      | |
   | +---------+ |
   |   Y         |
   +-------------+

yeah?

>("ableit retrofitted" applies to both "some members of X" and "some
>members of Y")

yep.  totally.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."