> I have a piece of what I think is portable C that searches through all > the CVS/Entries to find the file with the newest timestamp.
Thanks for the offer - and if we do go down this road, that might well be worth looking at. But I remain unconvinced that it's necessary for the version string to include a timestamp at all. I still feel that a plain "5.1.1+CVS" style would be sufficient. Particularly if we can be a little more successful at rolling out minor releases at more frequent intervals. If the version stamp is updated frequently (e.g. daily or for every commit), that just adds extra noise to the CVS logs (mailing list, ChangeLog,etc) for no real significant benefit, IMO. And if it's not going to be frequent, then why bother? Not to mention that any form of automated update is an extra potential source of problems. This may be partly why Robert got the impression that he was alone in wanting a change, I suppose. I'm generally against the idea of automated updates - I don't trust computers :-) But a simple manual mechanism should be both reliable and useful. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
