Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2479) Change version string of development version
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2479) Change version string of development version

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2479) Change version string of development versions
From: "Paul Zastoupil via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:17:48 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:45:45AM -0800, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:00:46AM -0800, Jason Short via RT wrote:
> > Secondly, it will require a commit to this file every time any other 
> > file is committed.  This may be done by a script, but having a script 
> > that actually makes changes to the code is dangerous.
> 
> The script only commits the file with -f and CVS itself will update
> the $Id...$ value.
> 
> > Thirdly, it won't actually give foolproof results.  If you "cvs up -A" 
> > or "cvs up -D ..." from the toplevel directory, you're fine.  But if you 
> > apply a patch or update only part of a repository, your datestamp will 
> > be misleading.  So the end result is that it will work for the daily 
> > snapshots, but not too well for any self-compiled CVS versions.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > The goal is to know what code someone is using when they report a bug. 
> 
> IMHO the goal is more to get a more accurate label for the meta
> server. Bugs reports against CVS alwas have to happen against a clean
> HEAD version of CVS.

But isn't the question "which" clean version of HEAD?

A perfect solution would seem to need a timestamp on the version.

But we don't have that many commits...

-- 
Paul Zastoupil



[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]