Subject: Re: esoteric question: consistency of NetBSD CVS tree?
To: Alan Barrett <>
From: None <>
List: current-users
Date: 10/16/2003 10:29:52
On Thursday 16 October 2003 09:33, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, wrote:
> > Hey that's a good list of files. Thanks, I think you saved me the
> > trouble of doing it myself.
> Maybe not.  The same problem might have afflicted additional files in
> the intervening two years.
> > Did you happen to notice the branch tags that were missing
> > revisions, too? Many of the files in the repository have a pile of
> > branch tags associated with them with (usually) vendor style
> > revisions attached--but then no actual revisions in the RCS file
> > itself.
> No, I didn't notice that.  Is it possible that the missing revisions
> are for files affected by the Berkeley/AT&T/USL lawsuit several years
> ago?
> --apb (Alan Barrett)

Good point. It's possible: Here's one example file with the problem I'm 


... notice there "seem" to be at least some revisions missing from that 
one. For example, there are the "vendor" tags:


Now in other files in that same directory, you have revisions that match 
up with the netbsd:1.1.1 tag: you have both, in the 
file nqnfs.h,v, but not in krpc.h,v and others.

This kind of inconsistency is littered throughout the tree, and so I'm 
almost of the opinion that I'm reading the information wrong somehow. 
After all, aren't symbolic tags still tags attached to specific 
revisions in an RCS file? I know that revisions like, for 
example, are magic branch tags that refer to branches, but even these 
are sometimes missing entirely from the deltas section.

On the other hand, the cvsweb interface ascribes some of these missing 
tags to the head's 1.6. For example, chs-ubc2: in the nqnfs.h,v 
doesn't seem to have any associated revs (no 1.6.26.x): but the cvsweb 
interface ascribes this tag to the head rev 1.6.

Argh my head is exploding!

Anyway, makes for a difficult tracking/conversion exercise.

no .plan