RE: Is this possible? <More Info>

[Jerry Nairn]

> From: Don Weeks [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:21 PM

> I need to tag or label a specific version of a specific file 
> perhaps days 
> after other versions have been put in the repository.

Not a problem. I don't know why you keep saying that as if it mattered.
I'm scrambling the context a little below.

> At 01:46 PM 12/5/2001 -0800, Jerry Nairn wrote:
> >think. I'm not sure, because I don't know what you want to 
> record that is
> >not recorded anyway.

> I want to get the name of the individual commiting the 
> change, and the 
> version of the file commited. The file version information 
> would be used, 
> maybe several days later, after it was approved to go in a 
> build. To go in 

You are not mentioning anything that is not recorded anyway, so you don't
need some way to record this information. You want some way to pass it to
another system, as you said.

> I need to pass this info over to another system, perhaps the problem 
> reporting tool or the project management tool:
> 
>       PR# 321 was solved by adding foo.c version 3.2.1 and 
> foo.h version 
> 3.3.1. These now have the tag REL3.2 (This implies that if I 
> checkout all 
> the files using tag REL3.2, I can build the entire product.)

See what the manual says about loginfo and take a look at log.pl,
commit_prep.pl, and log_accum.pl in the contrib directory distributed with
cvs. These are used to send email about committed changes. Something like
this can be used to update your problem tracking system.

> approved. Typically, 
> a group or list of files is associated with a problem report 
> or change 
> request and when that change request is approved, those files 
> associated 
> with it are tagged/added to the build. Good solid CM.

Standard CM. Basic CM. How good and solid it is comes in the implementation.

> Problem 
> is that while 
> the foo.c version 3.2.1 fixes problem 321, foo.c may need to 
> be modified 
> again to fix problem 333. So, after 321 is fixed and still in 
> the approval 
> cycle, 333 may go to the developer for work.

Not a problem.
I don't know. It seems to me that you're expecting this to be a problem, and
the fact that it isn't is the reason you don't see a solution.

What you might want to do is have something triggered from loginfo update
some database or something. I don't know.

I once worked at a shop which had an approval system for changes which
worked via email. A commit would trigger an email. If one of three
engineering managers sent an approval reply, the change was merged into the
"protected" branch.
Maybe something like that would be more like what you want.
I think you need to look harder at what you can do with cvs and how you want
to do it. You're not doing anything weird, I think.
I think the answer to your question is yes, what you want is possible.
Some of the issues you mention above can also be addressed in some
situations with branches, but that's another topic.
Good luck,
Jerry