[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Make cvs ignore some changes in files

From: Noel Yap
Subject: RE: Make cvs ignore some changes in files
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT)

--- Frederic Brehm <address@hidden> wrote:
> >1. Why are there systems that are able to commit,
> but
> >can't build Makefile.cache?
> There are no such systems. I'm not sure where my
> text misled you into 
> thinking that, but that's not what I meant to say.

I was misled by the post that said:
> >The generated files don't need to be revision
> controlled, but they need to 
> >be available to people or tools who cannot run the
> tool that generates the 
> >files.

> >2. Why would you not want to commit Makefile.cache
> >once it's regenerated?
> You cannot commit it until the other corresponding
> source files are 
> committed. If you commit new or modified source
> files, then you must commit 
> the modified Makefile.cache.
> Yes, there have been a couple of times where
> everything wasn't properly 
> committed and it broke the build for other
> developers. That's no worse than 
> other typical errors like forgetting to cvs add a
> new file and committing 
> other modified files that depend on the new file.

I'm very confused now.  The subject says, "Make cvs
ignore some changes in files".  Your statement above
indicates that you want to force checkin of a file. 
Can you restate your problem please?

> >3. Why can't the build system just generate
> >Makefile.cache without it being versioned?
> Building Makefile.cache from scratch requires
> running a GUI tool. The GUI 
> cannot be run without manual intervention. The build
> system is used for 
> automated (read "no manual intervention") builds to
> create a release. It's 
> the middle part of "cvs export; build; package".

I see.

The requirements still sound contradictory -- you need
an automated build but you need to use a manual-only
GUI tool.  IMHO, using a tool that doesn't fit the
real requirement of automation (remember, anything
that can be automated can also be done manually) is
reason enough to change the tool.

> Just for the record, I dislike this GUI tool and the
> extra conditions it 
> puts on the build and the extra work I had to do to
> get the builds to be 
> repeatable. This method was the best solution I
> could find.

CVS is a tool with a Unix philosophy.  The GUI tool is
not.  I think your choices are:
1. Don't use CVS.
2. Don't use the GUI build tool.
3. Live with the headaches.


Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs

reply via email to

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