Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net> writes:
> i merely meant that it (1.4A et al) was a descendant of 1.4 because
> 1.4A contains all of what is 1.4.  no?

_no_, not necessarily.

Bugs may be fixed differently on the branch than on the trunk, i.e. a
different fix may go into the trunk (1.4A, etc.) than goes into the
branch (1.4).  In fact, in some cases, the need for a change on the
trunk (1.4A and later) may be completely eliminated by other changes
on the trunk, i.e. 1.4 may get a change that 1.4A does not need and
will never need.

The only statement like this that you can make is that there's some
revision (in the general sense) of the source tree which has both 1.4
and 1.4A as descendents.  For 1.4, if i recall correctly this is
tagged netbsd-1-4-base, and is the set of revisions that were current
when the netbsd-1-4 branch was created.


As a matter of policy, things must be done -- possibly differently
("the right way") -- on the trunk before they are done on the branch.
Which means, in some sense, in terms of bugs and features, you could
claim that "1.4A" is a descendent of the "1.4".  However, if you're
going to apply that metric, then similarly there is some revision x
for which it can be said that 1.4x contains all of what is in 1.4.1,
etc. (at worst, the value of x on the trunk when 1.4.1 is released).

It is obviously wrong to claim that there's some revision 1.4x which
is a descendant (by any metric which actually involves source code
origin) of 1.4.1.  The relationship between 1.4 and 1.4A isn't quite
as obvious, but, in the same way, it is untrue to say that 1.4A is a
descendant of 1.4.



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