Re: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6torunon HP/COMPAQ/TANDEM/NSK or am I just wasting my time.....

[Paul Edwards]

"Kelly F. Hickel" <kfh@mqsoftware.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.790.1064619441.21628.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
>> > I realize more people are interested in the dev version, but I
>> > really
>>
>> I don't know how you know that.

> I should have said "I realize that those people who decide which patches
> to accept diffs for the dev version", that info comes from the HACKING
> file, and from this list.

Ok, well the reason why the HACKING file says that is because
the "feature version" takes both new features and bug fixes, while
the "stable version" takes only bug fixes.  So it is true that there
is a bigger hurdle to jump through to get onto stable.  But that is
to prevent massive structural change, not to stop a problem with
read() working on some systems.  (my understanding anyway).

And I would expect that most sites who do CM properly are
more interested in the stable version than features they didn't
ask for or have any use for.  They just want their current version
to work, properly.

>> job, I'd take it.  He didn't take the job, and I may contact the
>> company in January to see if the position is still available.  So
>> can you have it ready by then?

> That should be no problem, I don't think it should take more than a week
> or two, even with my current work load.

Ok, that was more an example of not making assumptions
about old systems, rather than I really needed it.  I doubt
that the position is still available, and I doubt that they
would take someone with no Tandem experience, and I'm
not even familiar with the company to know that CVS could
help.

>> And then you create a saferead that has all that crap in it.
>> Maybe in subr.c?
>>
>> And in actual fact, you can even put a #define read saferead
>> in a header file, so you don't need to touch client.c at all.

> to work.  It actually affects both reads and writes on both files and
> sockets....

> Something like safe read/rite would be OK, I was wondering if that was
> something people wanted to see on more than just the NSK system (because
> of the comment that io should be done in 8k chunks), in which case a
> different implementation would be in order.

No, the same implementation would be in order.  They would
just change the value of SINGLE_WRITE_SIZE to 8k.  And all
these changes would be isolated to saferead and safewrite.  Those
systems that need saferead/write get those function activated,
not a problem.

> Note that I've never run the tests, I've fixed things as I've come to
> them.  Also, I have no interest in running a server on NSK.  Now, if I
> thought someone else would actually use the stuff, I'd be more inclined
> to do the full test suite, etc......

You don't need to run the full test suite, it only needs to pass
the full test suite on Linux/Mac/etc, which is not something you
do.  If you submit a fix that breaks that, it will be rejected.  You
do need to update the Changelog though, and also it would be a
good idea to tell people, probably in INSTALL, exactly what
they need to do to get CVS working on Tandem, e.g. manually
update config.h and stick in:

#define ACTIVATE_SAFE_FUNCS 1

BFN.  Paul.