Tend to agree, but this focus on the (technical) solution is not what it
is about, maybe.
I think $Revision$ renders a file revision like "1.47," which is not
very helpful. It is the (most recent!) {tree} tag that we would need; as
far as I know there is no explicit keyword for this.
Major thing is that it should be (considered) impossible to 'release'
material before having spent some maturing time in CVS (where it can and
will be tested). Touching / committing "version id" files is a routine
job that should be part of the standard release procedure.
No offense intended here, but it is never too late to adopt some good
practice...
Cheers,
Joost.
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 21:39 +0100, Alexander Wagner wrote:
> Pascal Georges wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Sorry that I did not get too much response to my thoughts below.
> > Disappointing indeed...
> >
> > Well then let me ask a question: How is it possible that a 3.7.1 was
> > 'released for download' whereas the about box in the CVS still names it
> > 3.7?
> >
> > Simply that the fix was not commited in CVS.
>
> I'm a bit confused right now. I gather you committed this fix by now.
> But, anyway, shouldn't scidVersion now show "3.7.2 Devel" for cvs?
>
> Just that nothing gets mixed up for the next release in the future.
>
> Would cvs -r and the use of $Revision: $ in the scidVersion variable be
> a solution? Maybe this is still possible? (I did not commit anything
> yesterday or today.)
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
