On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 23:01 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > Robert Collins wrote:
> >The one common point of interchange is the RCS. I think it has to be > >there that the solution is hooked in, whether its native to the RCS or > >not. > > > >Makefiles are not sufficient. > > > >Rob > > > > > > Once we have pre-precommit hooks, you could always add a "dos2unix" > command to make sure commits are all done with a specific line ending. Sure, but it will be hugely substandard. It will then leave the contents of the tree in a different state than the user expected, with the following side effects: * cause spurious rebuilds * break environments that need the other format line endings If you then say 'ok, we can add a reversing rule in the post commit hook', you then have to deal with failed commits leaving the tree with converted files. > If you really want to enforce rules at the server, and you don't have > disciplined developers, then you need a server process. Who mentioned a server ? > The best that > tla offers (which is pretty good) is a patch-queue-manager. > It changes how things work, but it does give you server side control > over what is committed into your archive. Sure it does. I maintain arch-pqm for baz and tla. And it doesn't solve this problem except in 'patch-text mode', which is a pretty limited and unsatisfying deployment. > The "consistent" action that tla does is leave things alone, and commit > exactly what you gave it. Which is /not/ the same as a pre-pre-commit hooks impact (see above). Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
