[Top][All Lists]

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

(no subject)

From: root
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 05:20:07 -0400

>From address@hidden  Fri Feb 16 03:12:29 2001
>Return-Path: <address@hidden>
Received: from ( [])
        by (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id 
        for <address@hidden>; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:12:24 +0900
Received: from localhost ([]
        by with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
        id 14TSq6-0004lw-00; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:09:10 -0500
Received: from ([])
        by with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
        id 14TSnn-0004JH-00
        for <address@hidden>; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:06:47 -0500
Received: (qmail 27425 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2001 18:06:45 -0000
Received: from (HELO 
  by with SMTP; 15 Feb 2001 18:06:45 -0000
Received: by (8.10.0) id f1FI6iL07797; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 
10:06:44 -0800
From: Mike Castle <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: 2 "how to <> in CVS" questions
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Reply-To: Mike Castle <address@hidden>
Mail-Followup-To: Mike Castle <address@hidden>, address@hidden
References: <address@hidden>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To: <address@hidden>; from address@hidden on Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 
09:06:20AM -0500
Sender: address@hidden
Errors-To: address@hidden
X-BeenThere: address@hidden
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Post: <mailto:address@hidden>
List-Subscribe: <>,
List-Id: Announcements and discussions for the CVS version control system 
List-Unsubscribe: <>,
List-Archive: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:06:44 -0800
Status: O
Content-Length: 1765
Lines: 38

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:06:20AM -0500, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> I am trying to figure out how to implement an automated process in which,
> just prior to checkin approval, the branch is verified. Then after checkin,
> the bug number is attached to that new file version.

>From reading your description of what you want to do, I was wondering

How do you handle the situation where a particular bug fix may take several
commits of the same file.  That is, multiple revision numbers to one bug

I mean, the whole reason for having SCM is so that you can step back at any
point of time.  So, it may be that a particular bug fix may require the
developer to perhaps step down the wrong path at some point at part of an
investigation, and therefore back out some changes.  So, without the
ability to use the SCM, because it appears to be tied down to one
version/bug fix, the developer is forced back to the old broken method of
keeping their own backup copies of the files.  Almost as bad as having no
SCM in the first place!

If you trust your developers enough to write code, then they should be
smart enough to do something like add a line of comment to the commit
message, like "BUG #123" and you could have something on the backend that
will notice this in the message, and mark the bug as fixed in the bug
tracking system.

       Mike Castle       Life is like a clock:  You can work constantly
  address@hidden  and be right all the time, or not work at all and be right at least twice a day.  -- mrc
    We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.  -- Watchmen

Info-cvs mailing list

reply via email to

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