Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: cscvs--experimental--1.1 nearing doneness; call for testers

[John Goerzen]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Charles Duffy wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 14:54, John Goerzen wrote:
> > FWIW, the other cscvs trees appeared to exhibit the same behavior wrt
> > all those initial changesets during their cache -b procedures.
> 
> I'm trying to reproduce your results right now, but... which patchlevel
> of cscvs were you using for this?

address@hidden/cscvs--experimental--1.1--patch-50

> That bug has been fixed for quite a long time, and if there's been a
> regression, it's one I certainly haven't noticed -- indeed, I've
> recently [this morning] rebuilt the cache on my work tree (30K+ files)
> ground-up, and all the initial adds are squarely in MAIN.1 where they
> belong.

I wonder if bkcvs is different in some way?