Operator Precedence and Patches.

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 5 Mar 2002, in message <200203051747.RAA25415 at inputplus.demon.co.uk>,
ralph at inputplus.co.uk wrote:

[snip]
> > 
> > Personally, I have only very recently put OSLib under CVS control, so
> > that won't help you historically.
> 
> Fortunately, our baseline is your 6.30 so we need nothing earlier than
> that.
> 
Unfortunately, when I said "very recently", I meant, um, very recently ;-)
The current baseline is V6.33; TBH, I'm really only just getting to grips
with CVS, and haven't got round to some of it yet; not that it's hard, just a
profusion of commands :-)

Anyway, you've confused me now. Your initial query was for historical diffs,
because only the latest few releases were available on the web site.
However, 6.30, 6.31 and 6.32 are all there, so you can download them and
generate your own diffs. So that problem's solved, AFAICS; Only 2.8 Mb ;-)

> 
> How about patches from now on?  If you're using CVS and tagging the
> releases then I think we're after
> 
>     cvs rdiff -r oslib-630 -r oslib-631 -u oslib |
>     gzip -9 >oslib-630-631.patch.gz
> 

Tags is one of the things I haven't yet got around to. I'm quite attracted to
the idea of setting up a new repository with 6.30 as the baseline. I could
certainly put the patch files in their own archive with each release. I could
even do this retrospectively. Hmm... I'll have a play with it.

The next question is of timescales. Unless a major bug crops up, I wouldn't
envisage a new release of OSLib until Autumn time; and I could probably
commit myself to getting it into CVS with 6.30 as baseline by then, which
would allow me to release diffs with each new release from then onwards. 

I don't think many people download the source, so it is also quite attractive
to place it all under CVS on SourceForge, and lose the source archives on my
web site. In your experience with SourceForge, is it reliable? Do you use the
repository there as the master for your project? Do you keep a local
repository to use in case SourceForge becomes inaccessible?

> Unfortunately, there's another `oslib' project at SourceForge already so
> you'd have to augment the name.
> 
Hmm, yes, something like RISC_OS_OSLib, maybe.


-- 
Tony van der Hoff         | MailTo:tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk
                          | MailTo:avanderhoff at iee.org
Buckinghamshire, England  | http:www.mk-net.demon.co.uk