[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why the split for rcvs?

From: Noel L Yap
Subject: Re: Why the split for rcvs?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:16:37 -0500

address@hidden on 2001.03.23 14:25:36
>> Since I didn't found RCVS, I'm strictly speaking from what I saw.  At the
>> RCVS was created, maintenance on CVS was questionable.  The product had been
>> handed over from one company to another.  I think the founder wanted some
>> that developers can post patches.
>What do you think about things now?  Do you think that main tree of CVS is now
>being supported ok?

Yes.  However, my patches are lacking some of the things the HACKING file asks
for in patch submissions (test cases and documentation) so it's been made clear
to me that unless these things are supplied, the patches won't make it into the
standard release.

>> I've been trying to find time and volunteers to help me create more usable
>> patches than the ones I've submitted for RCVS.  If you want to volunteer some
>> time (specially for some of the patches you may already be interested in), I
>> (and many, many others) really appreciate it.
>I will volunteer time.  I have done a fair amount of UNIX C and Shell scripting
>in the past but I'm rusty at this point.  I'm intersted in the locking code.
>What I don't understand about your code is how well has it already been grafted
>into the main CVS tree.  Is your code based exculcively off of the rcvs tree
>(I also have no idea how much the current version of cvs and rcvs differ)?

None of my patches are in the main CVS tree.

My RCVS patches were based off of cvs-1.10.8.  They are incremental (which means
you'll need to install each and every patch up to and including the last one you
need) -- I'm working on fixing this.

>Give me a good idea of where to start on your locking code and how the merge
>into the main cvs tree should be approched.  (I saw Derek's posts about your
>reserved lock code and I think I understand what is being asked for but I'm
>not sure).
>Let me know how I can help

Awesome.  I'm enclosing the patches dealing with locking and multiple edits --
there're three of them 'cos one of them is a merge of the other two with
conflicts resolved.  You may also want to take a look at some of the bug fixes.
If you have questions, feel free to ask.

Note that these patches are against cvs-1.11 and I have very minimal testing on

Thanks much,

(See attached file: fix-backup_over_readonly.diff)(See attached file:
enh-multiple_edits+reservations.diff)(See attached file: enh-reservations.diff)
(See attached file: enh-multiple_edits.diff)(See attached file:
fix-default_fileattrs.diff)(See attached file: fix-edit_fields_with_plus.diff)

Attachment: fix-backup_over_readonly.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: enh-multiple_edits+reservations.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: enh-reservations.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: enh-multiple_edits.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: fix-default_fileattrs.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: fix-edit_fields_with_plus.diff
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

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