Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net> writes:
> 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.

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


> 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.



[ 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.

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



cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.