Re: octave on biowulf

[John Swensen]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 21-Mar-2006, Tom Holroyd (NIH/NIMH) [E] wrote:
>
> | As long as the CVS version number is different from the version on the 
> website, that should avoid any future confusion.  Calling the CVS version 
> 2.9.6 should be fine, and you don't have to increment the CVS version number 
> each time, so long as there is no way to get 2.9.6 any place else.
>
> I don't think that will solve the problem because someone who installs
> the CVS version could easily mistake what they have for 2.9.6 when
> they really have some CVS version between 2.9.5 and 2.9.6.  So if they
> report a bug after the 2.9.6 snapshot is available, we don't really
> know what version they have.  It is essentially the same problem as
> now, but the version number is relative to a future snapshot instead
> of the previous one.  At least if we tag the CVS version with "-cvs",
> we will know to ask more about the date it was checked out/updated/built.
>
> jwe
>
>
>
>   
Just as an aside, Subversion has a solution for this.  I don't remember
the exact reason why you guys didn't want to move to subversion, but
since it has atomic commits, a revision number is given to each and
every snapshot of the repository.  I can't remember the command off the
top of my head, but that revision number can be easily retrieved from
the subversion metadata.

-John Swensen