From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3124 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2002 19:01:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3116 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2002 19:01:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2002 19:01:04 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18LT9L-0005uf-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 14:01:03 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18LJu7-0002wk-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:08:46 -0500 Received: from gold.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.12]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18LJu6-0002wD-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:08:43 -0500 Received: from student.cusu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.82] helo=kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ident=mail) by gold.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18LJu2-0007w3-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 09:08:38 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18LJu2-0006DF-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 09:08:38 +0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 11:06:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: To: Zack Weinberg cc: Subject: Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation In-Reply-To: <87r8csdn9p.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.8 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,IN_REP_TO, MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00474.txt.bz2 On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote: > 0a. All data stored in the repository is under an end-to-end > checksum. All data transmitted over the network is independently > checksummed (yes, redundant with TCP-layer checksums). CVS does > no checksumming at all. Doesn't SSH? (And CVS does checksum checkouts/updates: if after applying a diff in cvs update the file checksum doesn't match, it warns and regets the whole file, which can indicate something was broken in the latest checkin to the file (yielding a bogus delta). This is however highly suboptimal - it should be an error not a warning (with a warning sent to the repository maintainers) and lots more checksumming should be done. In addition: 0aa. Checksums stored in the repository format for all file revisions, deltas, log messages etc., with an easy way to verify them - to detect corruption early.) > 5. Should have the ability to generate ChangeLog files automagically > from the checkin comments. (When merging to basic-improvements I > normally spend more time fixing up the ChangeLogs than anything > else. Except maybe waiting for 'cvs tag' and 'cvs update -j...'.) The normal current practice here is for branch ChangeLogs to be kept in a separate file, not the ChangeLogs that need merging from mainline. (In the case of BIB the branch ChangeLog then goes on the top of the mainline one (with an overall "merge from BIB" comment) when the merge back to mainline is done. For branches developing new features a new ChangeLog entry describing the overall logical effect of the branch changes, not the details of how that state was reached, is more appropriate.) -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk