[scm-migration-dev] do hg pbchk checks support *.NOT files?

2009-06-26 Thread Ali Bahrami
Richard Lowe wrote: > Will Fiveash writes: > >> While we are on the subject, is it feasible/reasonable for the hg cdm >> extension checks to support some form of exemption lists that are found >> in the repository? The idea is that instead of having personalized >> *.NOT files, there would be a

[scm-migration-dev] Change coming: 6785284 Mapfile versioning rules need to be more visible to gatelings

2009-02-09 Thread Ali Bahrami
James Carlson wrote: > Ali Bahrami writes: >> James Carlson wrote: >>> General: >>> >>> There should be a prototype mapfile in usr/src/prototypes/. >> I created usr/src/prototypes/prototype.mapfile-vers > > OK; thanks. Odd that this new protot

[scm-migration-dev] Cadmium tests?

2009-02-05 Thread Ali Bahrami
Richard Lowe wrote: > Ali Bahrami writes: >> I pulled over scmtest and ran it, and it did in fact pick up >> something that I had changed. The cddlchk test relies on >> Cddl.py having a variable Cddl.CmntChrs, and in my changes, I >> had refactored that into CmtBlk.

[scm-migration-dev] Cadmium tests?

2009-02-05 Thread Ali Bahrami
jw137282 wrote: > Mark J. Nelson wrote: >> You can pull a copy of the repo from >> ssh://anon at hg.opensolaris.org//hg/scm-migration/scmtest, then cd into >> src/legacy/scm/tooltest and read the README there. >> >> I don't think you need to worry about the TET-harnessed stuff, but >> others may

[scm-migration-dev] Change coming: 6785284 Mapfile versioning rules need to be more visible to gatelings

2009-02-04 Thread Ali Bahrami
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~alib/mapfilechk.heads_up James Carlson wrote: > Ali Bahrami writes: >> I have written a heads up message that describes all of this in more >> detail: >> >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~alib/mapfilechk.heads_up >> >> Webrev for the cha

[scm-migration-dev] Change coming: 6785284 Mapfile versioning rules need to be more visible to gatelings

2009-02-04 Thread Ali Bahrami
Thanks Mark, Responses are inline. Rod, I've cc'd you, because there are things (referenced below) that I'd appreciate your looking at. Mark J. Nelson wrote: > >> I have written a heads up message that describes all of this in more >> detail: >> >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~alib/mapf

[scm-migration-dev] Change coming: 6785284 Mapfile versioning rules need to be more visible to gatelings

2009-02-04 Thread Ali Bahrami
Mark J. Nelson wrote: >> usr/src/tools/scripts/mapfilechk.1 > > Do you have this installed on a system that I can just check the manpage? > I've installed this SUNWonbld on rtld.central. I'll respond to the rest of your comments after I work through them. Thanks... - Ali

[scm-migration-dev] Change coming: 6785284 Mapfile versioning rules need to be more visible to gatelings

2009-02-02 Thread Ali Bahrami
I believe that I have finished the work for 6798660 Cadmium .NOT file processing problem with CWD relative file paths Contributed by Richard Lowe 6785284 Mapfile versioning rules need to be more visible to gatelings 6800164 Standard file exclusion mechanism needed for Cadmium t

[scm-migration-dev] Problem with cadmium and cwd-relative file paths

2009-01-28 Thread Ali Bahrami
James Carlson wrote: > > I was commenting on Ali's seeming misunderstanding of my original > comment; he brought up adding -w enhancements, when I was merely > saying that renaming files (if that's how the changes are wrought) > shouldn't be a serious concern. > You're right --- it never occurred

[scm-migration-dev] Problem with cadmium and cwd-relative file paths

2009-01-28 Thread Ali Bahrami
James Carlson wrote: > Ali Bahrami writes: >> - Files that are not actual linker mapfiles >> - A couple of template mapfiles that are processed >>via their makefiles to generate mapfiles (mdb, libelfsign) >> - A small number of mapfiles th

[scm-migration-dev] Problem with cadmium and cwd-relative file paths

2009-01-28 Thread Ali Bahrami
Richard Lowe wrote: ... > File a bug, please. > > -- Rich I just filed: 6798660 Cadmium .NOT file processing problem with CWD relative file paths I marked it P4, because the world isn't going to end over this one. However, my personal priority is somewhat higher, as I'd like to get this mapfil

[scm-migration-dev] Problem with cadmium and cwd-relative file paths

2009-01-27 Thread Ali Bahrami
Danek Duvall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 06:07:29PM -0700, Ali Bahrami wrote: > >> mapfilechk examines any file with a name that matches '*mapfile*', >> and ignores all others. However, there are a small number of files >> in OSnet that match this patt

[scm-migration-dev] Problem with cadmium and cwd-relative file paths

2009-01-27 Thread Ali Bahrami
Mike Kupfer wrote: > I'm a little confused. Are you using the .NOT mechanism so that your > mapfilechk code will avoid known files? Or are you creating an actual > .NOT file that lists the things mapfilechk must skip? Assuming we fix > the path issue in Cadmium, what will users see after your pu

[scm-migration-dev] Problem with cadmium and cwd-relative file paths

2009-01-27 Thread Ali Bahrami
I've been working on adding a new linker mapfile check (mapfilechk) to cadmium, patterned on cddlchk, as detailed in the CR: 6785284 Mapfile versioning rules need to be more visible to gatelings In a nutshell, there will be a standard comment in all of the OSnet link-editor mapfiles, and

[scm-migration-dev] Code Manager notification (putback-to)

2008-03-31 Thread Ali Bahrami
James Carlson wrote: > Ali Bahrami writes: >> Comment: >> 6679212 sgs use of SCCS id for versioning is obstacle to mercurial migration > > Many thanks! > My pleasure. It was easy. I'm looking forward to fast bringovers from .eng... :-) - Ali