From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Nov 20 16:30:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA24166 for stable-outgoing; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:30:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (sri-gw.MT.net [206.127.105.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA24129 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:29:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA22084; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:29:45 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12133; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:29:43 -0700 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:29:43 -0700 Message-Id: <199711210029.RAA12133@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: chad@dcfinc.com Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), rkw@dataplex.net, brian@awfulhak.org, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Version Resolution? In-Reply-To: <199711210025.RAA04348@freebie.dcfinc.com> References: <199711202218.PAA11561@mt.sri.com> <199711210025.RAA04348@freebie.dcfinc.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.29 under 19.15 XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > It's got to be in one place so that all > > of the different distribution mechanisms get the same information if > > they grab the same file (CTM/CVS/CVSup). If not in one place, then all > > of the distribution mechanism must generate the *EXACT* same information > > given the *EXACT* same information, and given that the propogation > > delays of the sources throughout the world, then simple timestamps won't > > work. > > > > So, how do you do it? > > It would have to be a custom hack to CVS, letting it generate newvers.sh > on the fly at each commit. Then "simple timestamps" =would= work. That's what Richard's changes were doing. They also dealt with the issue of the files growing w/out bounds, and multiple branches, but they *didn't* deal with new branches appearing, which was the only sticking point I had with his solution. It's not as simple as it first appears to do right. Nate