[cvsnt] Re: Renaming Branch Tags

[David Hauck]

> David Hauck wrote:
> > OK, perhaps understanding the reason for the 2.5.01 failure
> will shed light
> > on the 2.0.58d failure. I'll standby pending your 2.5.01 results.
> >
> It looks like something got added which broke it.  Ironically a 2.5.01
> client and 2.0.58d server may well work, since the errant code isn't in
> 2.0.58d.

This suggests that the 2.0.58d client to 2.0.58d server inability in this
regard is unique from the 2.5.01 failure. Any more ideas on why the local
2.0.58d-only case doesn't work correctly?

(I'm still holding out hope that I can use 2.0.58d only, since 2.5.01 is
still pre-release. We're very paranoid, perhaps unreasonably, about this
sort of thing.)

-David

> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> cvsnt mailing list
> cvsnt at cvsnt.org
> http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt