Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 22:06:19 -0000 (GMT) From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@tri-lakes.net> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@Dataplex.Net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fwd: CVSup release identity Message-ID: <XFMail.971006221828.cdillon@tri-lakes.net> In-Reply-To: <l0311070bb05e8b80e634@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06-Oct-97 Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >>I have been following this debate since it started, and my own idea at >the >>beginning of it was very similar to the above. A time stamp is about as >>fine-grained as you can get, and is not dependant on how either CTM or >>cvsup work. After all, this has been how we have been describing just >how >>far along we are on the stable tree for a long time now. "And you >cvsupped >>when? 19:45 10/4/97? Oh, thats just before I made those <such and such> >>changes." > >I have no objection to using timestamps to identify "progress" along a >branch. >However, you need to realize that the stamp must be applied at the time >that >the snapshot is taken from the master tree. Yes. For those that use cvsup, cvsupd could pass the timestamp to the client using the local time of the master server (therefore avoiding problems cropping up from incorrect local times). As for CTM, when the CTM deltas are made, the time stamp could be applied to them at that time in the same fashion. >We used to look at the timestamp placed on the kernel at compile time. >However, I don't care when you compile the source. (Although I can >conclude >that you are missing later changes.) What I want to know is WHICH version >of the master source you are using. I also do not care when YOU got the >source >from someone else. Since you do not have direct access to the master >source >by either ctm or cvsup, we need to stamp the sources at the time that >they >are extracted from the master source by the primary distributor. Anything >less increases the uncertainty interval. The more latency in the >distribution >mechanism, the higher the uncertainty. Agreed. >The only objection that I have to the use of timestamps as the identifier >is >that they may not be "user friendly". A user who gets a release CD knows >that >he has release "5.1.9". He doesn't realize that it was generated on >October >31 at >4:26:37 PM PDT. Similarly, users of CTM distributions know that they have >updated through delta 4726. > >Richard Wackerbarth But none of that has to change, does it? 5.1.9-RELEASE can still be called 5.1.9-RELEASE... Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to get across here? :-) P.S. I've only been using FreeBSD for a bit over a year, and only been running 2.2-stable for a few months now.. If any of this sounds like uneducated dribble then maybe it is. :-) This is just what seems to make the most sense to me. --- Chris Dillon --- cdillon@tri-lakes.net --- Powered by FreeBSD, the best free OS on the planet ---- (http://www.freebsd.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.971006221828.cdillon>