Hi folks,
I'm doing some research on our usages of the $Header$ keyword in our
main CVS repo.
The primary use-case that has been publicly stated before was for users
to be able to identify to developers what version of a given ebuild they
were using.
Q: How much have you utilized the primary use
Hi,
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:40:36 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm doing some research on our usages of the $Header$ keyword in our
> main CVS repo.
>
> Q: Are there any other use-cases you have and actively use?
I use the revision present in the header to identify chang
On T, 2008-08-26 at 13:40 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The primary use-case that has been publicly stated before was for
> users
> to be able to identify to developers what version of a given ebuild they
> were using.
>
> Q: How much have you utilized the primary use case?
Never. There has ne
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:41:07PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > I'm doing some research on our usages of the $Header$ keyword in our
> > main CVS repo.
> >
> > Q: Are there any other use-cases you have and actively use?
> I use the revision present in the header to identify changes in
> ebuil
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:54:21 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:41:07PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > > I'm doing some research on our usages of the $Header$ keyword in
> > > our main CVS repo.
> > >
> > > Q: Are there any other use-cases you have
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:59:09PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > Err, what do you mean by revision dump?
> revision dump is when foo-1.0-r4 becomes foo-1.0-r5.
That's revision 'B'ump, not 'D'ump.
> But when foo-1.0-r4 is updated in-place, I use CVS revisions
> (ej: 1.12 -> 1.13 in 2nd word in
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:45:25 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:59:09PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > > Err, what do you mean by revision dump?
> > revision dump is when foo-1.0-r4 becomes foo-1.0-r5.
> That's revision 'B'ump, not 'D'ump.
Sorry, n
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:50PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > Why do you need to identify the changes? Considering that the checksum
> > changes as well, is detecting change not sufficient? (or asking the
> > VCS for what files have changed since your last check time).
> I am writing a tool
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:50PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
>> I am writing a tool that creates deb (as in Debian package format) based
>> distributions from gentoo packages and that tool encodes the CVS
>> revision as
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:59:09PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
>>> Err, what do you mean by revision dump?
>> revision dump is when foo-1.0-r4 becomes foo-1.0-r5.
> That's revision 'B'ump, not 'D'ump.
>
bumb!!
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:25:16 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:50PM -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> > > Why do you need to identify the changes? Considering that the
> > > checksum changes as well, is detecting change not sufficient? (or
> > > aski
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:37:09AM +0200, Ren?? 'Necoro' Neumann wrote:
> - --or: to have the unique rev-id instead of the branch-local rev-number--
> bzr log -l1 --show-ids $FILE | grep "revision-id" | cut -f2 -d' '
IIRC, the revision-id is just like the Git $Id$, it's a hex string, not
an increme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robin H. Johnson schrieb:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:37:09AM +0200, Ren?? 'Necoro' Neumann wrote:
>> - --or: to have the unique rev-id instead of the branch-local rev-number--
>> bzr log -l1 --show-ids $FILE | grep "revision-id" | cut -f2 -d' '
> IIR
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
René 'Necoro' Neumann schrieb:
> Only oddity are
> revnos of merged branches (e.g. "193.1.10")
Gnah - forget this issue.. from the main branch' viewpoint, the last
change is always in the merge revision, and not in a revision being
merged. So it is gu
On 26-08-2008 15:41:07 -0500, Yuri Vasilevski wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:40:36 -0700
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm doing some research on our usages of the $Header$ keyword in our
> > main CVS repo.
> >
> > Q: Are there any other use-cases you have and actively us
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 13:40 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Q: How much have you utilized the primary use case?
Not at all
> Q: Are there any other use-cases you have and actively use?
No
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place,
> unless there is a very good reason to remove it.
As I wrote in the other thread, my reason for asking is that it's one of
the things that doesn't have clear ma
On 27-08-2008 10:28:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place,
> > unless there is a very good reason to remove it.
> As I wrote in the other thread, my reason for as
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27-08-2008 10:28:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> > For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place,
>> > unless there is a
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:57:30AM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> So you are saying we should do what?
>
> precompute the CVS header and inject it into $header$ ourselves
> take the checksums
> generate the manifest
> revert the $header$ change
> then commit the ebuild and manifest at once
>
> The o
On 27-08-2008 11:57:30 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > For who is it a mess? Not for repoman users, I suppose, and everyone
> > should be using it, right? As the one who personally played with the
> > code in repoman that determines whether or not the "double commit" is
> > necessary, I think it's
On 27-08-2008 12:15:35 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> For those not using SSH ControlMaster, one of the side-effects of having
> to do two separate commits is the SSH setup latency hitting twice.
>
> I wouldn't call it repoman's fault like Fabian did, but the
Right. I thought I suggested that
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm doing some research on our usages of the $Header$ keyword in our
> main CVS repo.
>
> The primary use-case that has been publicly stated before was for users
> to be able to identify to developers what version of a given ebuild
> they
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 05:31:21PM +0200, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > For evaluating existing uses of the primary case, I took a glance at
> > Bugzilla. There are 624 bugs total that contain a $Header$ with an
> > existing Gentoo path. At least 143 of those are for new packages or
> > version bumps (t
24 matches
Mail list logo
