Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:40:18 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: chad@dcfinc.com Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), rkw@dataplex.net, brian@awfulhak.org, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Version Resolution? Message-ID: <199711210040.RAA12221@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711210035.RAA04407@freebie.dcfinc.com> References: <199711210029.RAA12133@mt.sri.com> <199711210035.RAA04407@freebie.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> It would have to be a custom hack to CVS, letting it generate newvers.sh > >> on the fly at each commit. Then "simple timestamps" =would= work. > > > > That's what Richard's changes were doing. They also dealt with the > > issue of the files growing w/out bounds, and multiple branches, but they > > *didn't* deal with new branches appearing, which was the only sticking > > point I had with his solution. > > But there are (can be) seperate copies of newvers.sh in each branch? > Seems it would be an administrative procedure to touch it correctly as > part of creating a new branch. How often does that happen? Couple of > times a year? More than that, but as I stated before, file corruption even *once* isn't acceptable. The number of problems that will occur when a branch occurs (and everyone and his dog decides to finally download things) means that the # of questions due to bogus files is now bigger than the number of questions solved by implementing the solution. All it takes is some time to fix the 'added' branch problems, but Richard is too busy whining to go find a solution. ;( Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711210040.RAA12221>