[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: octave on biowulf
From: |
John Swensen |
Subject: |
Re: octave on biowulf |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:49:49 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051006) |
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