Operator Precedence and Patches.

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 26 Mar 2002, in message <daf57f1d4b.tom at compton.compton.nu>,
Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:

> In message <92ed83124b.Tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
>           Tony van der Hoff <tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Personally, I have only very recently put OSLib under CVS control, so
> > that won't help you historically. However, I believe Tom Hughes was, at
> > one stage maintaining a CVS repository for OSLib going back to the first
> > 'open' version; I don't know whether that is still the case. No doubt he
> > will pipe up here if so.
> 
> I do have such a repository, but there are certain problems with it...
> 
> > I don't really fancy going back over the early versions in order to
> > create a full CVS repository myself; apart from the work that alone
> > entails, the directory structure changed very significantly at some
> > stage. Generating the patches for each version seems like even more work.
> 
> The changing directory structure is certainly one of the problems with my
> repository. My repository still has the original structure and I have to
> bend each new release into that structure before I can commit it, which
> usually means that I am a release or two behind.
> 
> In addition the case of the filenames hasn't always been very consistent
> from one release to the next which also causes problems when working on a
> case sensitive filesystem.
> 
> The other problem is that only the core source files are in my repository -
> much of the surrounding stuff is not there,
> 
In the meantime, I have built a CVS repository going back to version 6.00,
and included the tools and OSLibSupport. I have taken the opposite approach,
bending the structure of the earlier releases in line with the current
structure. Thus, although the files are the same, I don't think it would be
possible to build an early version from the repository. It does, however,
allow one to highlight the differences at each release, which I think is all
that's necessary.

> > If there's sufficient support from users, and depending upon the state of
> > Tom's repository, we could possibly put it on SourceForge and make it
> > public. I have not approached Tom on this idea, and I've no idea how
> > useful this idea would be in general.
> 
> I certainly think putting it on something like SourceForge would be a nice
> idea, although adding the whole back history would be a bit tricky.
> 
I'm currently jiggling the build files around, so that it is possible to
check out the project head and build everything from one double-click. In
that way, people can easily keep up to date with the very latest changes.
When that's complete I'll commit it to SourceForge. I still intend to make
regular binary releases, but propose to drop the source releases in the
future.

-- 
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