On 9/18/07, William Uther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure this makes a real difference. Either you want to re- > generate them or you don't. If you don't want to re-generate them > then you should add them.
I have nothing in particular to add to the rest of the discussion, but I want to point out that there are legitimate use cases for putting generated files into version control. The one I know about is when the source changes rarely *and* you need an unusual tool to do the regeneration. For example, there's this thing called AutoGen (has absolutely nothing in common with automake or autoconf, except that I believe the name was inspired by them) which is used to generate several files inside the GCC repository, such as the 'fixincludes' script. The script doesn't change often and we don't want to make people have the tool. It occurs to me that Monotone could do nice things for this scenario with a specialized cert on the derivative file, identifying the source(s) by file ID and content hash. This would have two effects: if the source file is being checked in and the derivative file isn't, the commit is rejected; and on checkout we somehow ensure that the last modification time of the derivative file is later than the last modification time of the source files. (GCC has a horrible post-checkout script you're supposed to run to do this. It would be *really nice* if it happened automatically.) zw _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
