[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Paperclips-discuss] Paperclips Bugs

From: Steven J. Owens
Subject: Re: [Paperclips-discuss] Paperclips Bugs
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:04:41 -0400 (EDT)

> The tagged version does work, and I can't gaurantee that the HEAD
> will work because I'm constantly working on it. But it'll be easier
> for me to fix things on the HEAD so, if I were you I'd check it out
> now and work on that (and don't update it till you're sure there's
> another working version).

     So should I move up to HEAD as well?  Pursuant to Nic's "aha", I
removed an old version of the jar tool in /usr/bin (actually, I
apt-get removed the old jdk 1.1 entirely from my system) and
paperclips makes cleanly (though it still complains about getopt).
> This probably means I (and Gokul if he's doing anything - he did have
> CVS trouble) should stop commiting things except when we're sure it's
> working.

     For a year or two now I've wanted to figure out a painless scheme
where you can make multi-level commits to CVS, so you can CVS your
in-progress work as well as using it the regular way.  I.e. as you
work you make private commits, until you reach a clean closure point
and you commit for public use.

     I've thought of different schemes for this - using two different
repositories, branching and merging on a daily basis, etc.  One
thought that just now occurred to me is to use tagging to the point of
absurdity; tag each "normal" daily release (i.e. everything compiles
and runs and passes regression tests) and then tweaking the cvs client
so it only checks out the most recent tagged release.

Steven J. Owens

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]