bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 torun


From: Kelly F. Hickel
Subject: RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs 1.11.6 torun
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:09:53 -0500

So, what's the simplest way to go about tracking down the cause of this
failure?  Where would I find a description of the test "basica-6.2" and
what it's supposed to be doing????

Kelly F. Hickel
Senior Software Architect
MQSoftware, Inc
952.345.8677
address@hidden


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly F. Hickel
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:05 AM
> To: Derek Robert Price
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs
1.11.6
> torun
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Derek Robert Price [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 10:48 AM
> > To: Kelly F. Hickel
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: Is there really any interest in a patch to allow cvs
> 1.11.6
> > to run
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Kelly F. Hickel wrote:
> >
> > |FAIL: basica-6.2
> > |make[2]: *** [localcheck] Error 1
> > |make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/cvs/cvs-1.11.6_nsk/src'
> > |make[1]: *** [check-am] Error 2
> > |make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/cvs/cvs-1.11.6_nsk/src'
> > |make: *** [check-recursive] Error 1
> > |/usr/local/cvs/cvs-1.11.6_nsk:
> > |
> > |How much does this matter?
> >
> >
> > If there are any sanity.sh tests failing, your fix is wrong because
it
> > breaks another part of CVS and the fix will not be accepted.
> [Kelly Hickel] Well, The fix isn't wrong, because the unchanged code
has
> the same problem.  All the fix does is get around the platform
> strangeness about size limited read/writes.  So, I haven't broken
> anything new, but cvs is actually usable, instead of un-usable.
> >
> > |   I still haven't gotten any good feeling
> > |from someone who actually has the power to put my patches into the
> > |source that they're interested in doing so....
> > |
> > |I'm about to upgrade the OS to the latest version, so I want to
wait
> > |any make sure that the unmodified source still has problems on the
> > |latest version, then I'll be ready to send out the (relatively
small)
> > |patch.
> >
> >
> > Per the HACKING in the top level of the CVS source distribution:
> >
> > |The general rule for portability is that it is only worth including
> > |portability cruft for systems on which people are actually testing
> and
> > |using new CVS releases.  Without testing, CVS will fail to be
> portable
> > |for any number of unanticipated reasons.
> >
> >
> > This means that unless we see that Tandem gets regular testing, the
> CVS
> > developers are unlikely to feel that your patch is useful even if it
> > begins to work since it will likely not stay useful for long.
> >
> > i.e. If somebody is not running nightly testing on the system, then
it
> > is much easier for another developer to check in a fix for something
> > else that breaks your portability cruft but which is not spotted
until
> > you tell it's broken after the next CVS release.
> [Kelly Hickel] Well, it seems a little unlikely that anyone (except
> maybe me) is going to loan you a $250,000 machine (smallest
> configuration available) to run nightly tests on.  If you have a
scheme
> that lets remote people do tests for you and mails back the results we
> can maybe work something out.
> >
> > The exception to this rule can be when you can find a fix already
> > incorporated in some GNULIB module we use (or get your fix
> incorporated
> > into GNULIB).  We hope to pick up portability cruft from GNULIB that
> we
> > might not actually be testing but which gets testing elsewhere.
> [Kelly Hickel] Well, I guess I may try to find time to take a look at
> GNULIB, I doubt it's fixed, but maybe it is.  This is the reason that
> I'm still using cvs 1.10.7 (which doesn't pass it's tests either),
it's
> just too difficult to upgrade, because I have to re-port the world
every
> time.  Given the above comments, I'll probably just send the latest to
> the ITUG folks, so that they can update their ported GNU tools
> repository.
> 
> By the way, I didn't end up changing any source files other than
subr.c,
> if that helps (I added two methods).  Again, (if you didn't see the
> earlier posts) I basically just added a safe_read and safe_write,
which
> some of the comments in client.c seem to be asking for.
> 
> Still, I suppose it's better to have a "no" (which is how I interpret
> your response), to having no answer at all.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Kelly
> >
> > Derek
> > - --
> > ~                *8^)
> >
> > Email: address@hidden
> >
> > Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
> > - --
> > I will not buy a presidential pardon.
> > I will not buy a presidential pardon.
> > I will not buy a presidential pardon...
> >
> >     - Bart Simpson on chalkboard, _The Simpsons_
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQE/fZoULD1OTBfyMaQRAp6CAKDPO2BR0Q7bJX/w+siMqPeyu0ZZ0gCeKX4+
> > OAOXilw3oKR90T8enCyo834=
> > =+yK4
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs




reply via email to

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