Re: Update on the branch surgery

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

On 10/27/2017 05:16 PM, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 26.10.2017 um 00:18 schrieb Eric S. Raymond:
>> 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
> 
> This might be a symptom of an actual problem in cvs-fast-export's 
> handling of vendor branches, or at the very least of a significant 
> functional limitation.
> 
> That diff is between two different revisions on the vendor branch 
> (1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2, a.k.a. "Initial import of beta340" and "Import of 
> 344").  Revision 1.1.1.2 is correct for all relased tags since 3.7.0, 
> but I suspect the general plan of "what happens on a vendor branch, 
> stays on a vendor branch", fails here.

Agreed.  This is a consequence of reposurgeon choosing to place that 
3.7.x branch somewhere other than the trunk at (what I believe should be)

Date:   Thu Jan 14 19:35:52 1999 +0000
     New file.

Lars created that branch, 1.1.1, near the start but didn't use it for 
much, apparently.  The branch-master is based on 1.1:

----------------------------
revision 1.1
date: 1998/04/15 19:16:41;  author: lhecking;  state: Exp;
branches:  1.1.1;
Initial revision
----------------------------

I confirmed there are no comments "# HBB: revised etc." in the master 
branch which matches Lars' CVS repo.

So there are two things going on, basically the same principle.  Some 
differences in branch-3.7.7 hang around if rebasing after the fact. Some 
differences at the very beginning of the master branch get propagated. 
When we compare across the two branches trying to find the graft 
location for 3.7.x series, its a combination of differences.

Can Reposurgeon force branch points at the start, as opposed to doing 
rebasing?

Dan