Re: Patch for CVS 1.11.17 and CVS 1.12.9 that allows for actions using specific versions of CVSROOT/modules

Mark D. Baushke wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Shane Turner <[email protected]> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Here at InfoInterActive, we've created a patch to allow us to better
>>manage our modules. Our issue was that if you had to reproduce a
>>build, there was no guarantee that the current version of a module
>>fully encompassed what it did at the time the software was tagged. To
>>rectify that we now tag CVSROOT/modules when we tag our software and
>>wrote a patch that causes CVS to use a particular version of the
>>modules file on checkout, export, etc. Now, if the CVSROOT/modules
>>file it tagged at the time the software is built, we should now be
>>able to re-create that build even if the module has been changed in
>>the future.
>>    
>>
>
>Hi Shane,
>
>You are addressing a problem that a number of folks consider a weakness
>of the modules file.
>
>However, as this is a new feature and not a remedy for an existing bug,
>it will not be added to the cvs 1.11.x branch and will only be
>considered for addition in the cvs 1.12.x feature branch. If possible,
>patches should be made against the CVS top-of-tree from cvshome.org.
>
>  
>
Exactly what I expected actually. I mailed out the 1.11.17 patch in case 
there are others (like our company) out there who haven't switched to 
1.12.X but would like to try out the patch.

As far as patching against the top-of-tree, I've tried to get access to 
the CVS repository on www.cvshome.org, but it has never worked. If I log 
in there then I can't do a damn thing. I've emailed to the webmaster 
(the only contact info I could find) and have never heard back. So this 
was the best I could do. If you can get my read-only access working, 
I'll gladly re-work the patch.

>All that said, I have not looked closely at your patch yet (and I
>probably won't have any time in the next few weeks myself, so if one of
>the other maintainers gets to it first that would be fine with me).
>
>I do have one comment/question for discussion...
>
>Would it be reasonable to extend the patch to also deal with '-D' times
>in conjunction with the -M ? So that if '-M branch' is used, then the
>branched version of the modules file is used and if -D and -M are used,
>then the version of the modules at that point in time on that branch are
>used...
>
>Note: A CVSROOT/modules file that was not branched or tagged will also
>need to do something reasonable given a '-M rev' flag.
>
>  
>
I'd like to extend it to take '-D' times, but I haven't worked at that 
yet. We currently only require using a date or revision. If we're stuck, 
we can determine the revision on a given date and use that. The -M flag 
will take a tag or a normal revision number so if you don't have a tag 
to use, you aren't stuck.

Shane

-- 
Shane Turner, Senior Software Engineer | InfoInterActive Corp. (An AOL Company)
E [email protected]     | W www.infointeractive.com
AIM: iiaShane ICQ: 60761162            | V: 902-832-2633 F: 902-832-1015
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-(+) s: a- C++$ ULS++ P+(++) L++ E@ W+ N o? K? w O M- V !PS !PE Y+ PGP
t++@ 5+ X+ R tv b+ DI+ D+ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++ 
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----