Hi!
I noticed both the 2.4 and 2.5 BK->CVS trees don't have version tags
any more (v2_5_70, for example, as in the old tree).
Is this intentional? Did CVS take too long to tag all files or something?
It was quite a nice feature to have them, very useful for finding out the
differences between certain kernel versions. I can live without it,
though. It's still a nice service without the tags. (Thanks!)
--
Ciao,
Pascal
I'll go look. CVS takes way too long to tag, it forces a rewrite of
every file. I did attempt to filter out tags that weren't of the forn
v2.* but it looks like I screwed up.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Pascal Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I noticed both the 2.4 and 2.5 BK->CVS trees don't have version tags
> any more (v2_5_70, for example, as in the old tree).
>
> Is this intentional? Did CVS take too long to tag all files or something?
>
> It was quite a nice feature to have them, very useful for finding out the
> differences between certain kernel versions. I can live without it,
> though. It's still a nice service without the tags. (Thanks!)
>
> --
> Ciao,
> Pascal
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Pascal Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I noticed both the 2.4 and 2.5 BK->CVS trees don't have version tags
> any more (v2_5_70, for example, as in the old tree).
>
> Is this intentional? Did CVS take too long to tag all files or something?
>
> It was quite a nice feature to have them, very useful for finding out the
> differences between certain kernel versions. I can live without it,
> though. It's still a nice service without the tags. (Thanks!)
Looks like the tags are on the ChangeSet file only. Which is why I
didn't notice. You could get a timestamp from the tag on ChangeSet and
use that for a -D argument.
A quick script could do this for you. I think it's wise of Larry to keep
it this way.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:59:10AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Pascal Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > I noticed both the 2.4 and 2.5 BK->CVS trees don't have version tags
> > any more (v2_5_70, for example, as in the old tree).
> >
> > Is this intentional? Did CVS take too long to tag all files or something?
> >
> > It was quite a nice feature to have them, very useful for finding out the
> > differences between certain kernel versions. I can live without it,
> > though. It's still a nice service without the tags. (Thanks!)
>
> Looks like the tags are on the ChangeSet file only. Which is why I
> didn't notice. You could get a timestamp from the tag on ChangeSet and
> use that for a -D argument.
>
> A quick script could do this for you. I think it's wise of Larry to keep
> it this way.
"Wise" is a stretch, more like a fortunate scripting screwup. But I agree
with Ben, given that you can get the info another way it is a lot easier
(i.e., thrashes the disk less) if we leave it as is.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> "Wise" is a stretch, more like a fortunate scripting screwup. But I agree
> with Ben, given that you can get the info another way it is a lot easier
> (i.e., thrashes the disk less) if we leave it as is.
I didn't notice there are still tags on the ChangeSet file. That's good
enough for me to use. :) It also makes rsync'ing the repositories a little
bit faster since rsync doesn't have to touch all files in case of a new
tag appearing.
Keep up the good work!
--
Ciao,
Pascal