Re: Update on the branch surgery

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

On 10/25/2017 10:16 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ethan A Merritt <sf...@us...>:
>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 3:18:37 PM PDT Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>>> I have successfully transplanted 4.2, but 4.0 has a problem.  Rebasing
>>> it on /#include gp_time.h/ yields this diff at the tip:
>>>
>>> --- a/demo/gnuplot.rot	1998-04-22 09:38:42.000000000 -0400
>>> +++ b/demo/gnuplot.rot	2017-10-25 17:39:55.083147765 -0400
>>> @@ -1,12 +1,5 @@
>>> -# HBB: revised open-ended animation routine. Used to just turn
>>> -# round and round by somewhat large steps. Now, it tumbles
>>> -# back and forth smoothly.
>>> -# If 'limit_iterations' is set to a nonzero value, it'll stop after that
>>> -# many iterations (iteration_count=0 has to be set before this -#
>>> script is called)
>>>   zrot=(zrot+10)%360
>>>   xrot=(xrot+17)%180
>>> -set view (50.+30.*sin(xrot/180.*pi)),60.+45.*sin(zrot/180.*pi)
>>> +set view xrot,zrot
>>>   replot
>>> -iteration_count=iteration_count+1
>>> -if ((!limit_iterations) || (iteration_count<=limit_iterations)) reread
>>> +reread
>>
>> That file has only been touched twice, once in 1998 and once in 2006.
>> The diff you list above was the 1998 change.
> 
> Hm. That's not what I see.
> 
> reposurgeon% [demo/gnuplot.rot] list
>    1009 1998-04-15T19:16:47Z  :1008 *** empty log message ***
>    1370 1998-04-22T13:40:59Z  :1369 Import of beta 344.
>   18500 2005-01-07T23:21:02Z :18499 Revise gif animation code to comply with

As Ethan mentioned, there may have been a typo in the ChangeLog 
time/date.  But that should be author info, not commit info.


>> At a guess, the 07-Jan-2006 change is right at the time of the 4.2 branch
>> and got caught on the wrong side of it.
> 
> Alas, it's nastier than that. The import of 344 is a commit that was only
> on the bizarro-branch leading to 3.7.1.  The 4-0-stable branch was rooted
> in *that import*, not the trunk leading 4 4 and everything later.
> 
> Here is what the repo structure looks like now, with the 5.0/4.6/4.4/4.2
> grafts done:
> 
> ------+--------+---------+-------+----------+---------+-------- master
>        |        |         |       |          |         |
>        |        |         |       |          |         +----- 5-2-stable
>        |        |         |       |          |
>        |        |         |       |          +------------ 5-0 stable
>        |        |         |       |
>        |        |         |       +-------------------- 4-6-stable
>        |        |         |
>        |        |         +------------------------- 4-4-stable
>        |        |
>        |        +-------------------------------- 4.2-stable
>        |
>        +--------X---------- 3.7.1
>                 |
> 	       +------------------ 4.0-stable
> 
> X marks the spot where the shortened version of the demo visible at the
> 4-0-stable tip (before surgery) was introduced.  When 4.0 is rerooted
> to the logical spot on the master branch, the longer 1998 version is exposed.

I'm not following completely, but I'll come to understand this as I look 
at the CVS/git comparison a bit more.  Certainly branch-4-0-stable 
should come from the trunk.  I looked at all the CVS time stamps and the 
versions are all 1.x associated with GNUPLOT_RELEASE_4_0_0, except for 
those in the /demo and /doc directories which have 1.1.1.x.  In 
contrast, the GNUPLOT_RELEASE_3_7_1 variety of tag has all sorts of 
1.3.x, 1.1.2.x sorts of versions for the main source files.

So, the 3.7.0 and 4.0.0 tag positions are in question.  I'll investigate 
by writing a script file to do repository directory-vs-directory 
comparison.  But that will take a little bit of time because I'm not 
fluent with writing script syntax conditionals, looping, number addition 
(to count and compare line difference, min-tests, etc.).

Dan