Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

diff between CVS vs. manual patching

Expand Messages
  • Benji Fisher
    I am trying to keep two copies of the vim sources: one from CVS (in vim/) and the other from the tarballs and patches (in vim61/). I just updated both, and
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 16, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I am trying to keep two copies of the vim sources: one from CVS
      (in vim/) and the other from the tarballs and patches (in vim61/). I
      just updated both, and there are some differences, which worries me. I
      think all the differences are in comments, but some of these make it
      unclear which version is more recent, since the one with the earlier
      date stamp has a later version number. What is going on? I will paste
      in part of the diff below.

      --Benji Fisher

      *** vim/runtime/lang/menu_czech_czech_republic.1250.vim Mon Mar 25
      12:00:36 2002
      --- vim61/runtime/lang/menu_czech_czech_republic.1250.vim Sat Mar
      9 12:42
      :17 2002
      ***************
      *** 2,9 ****
      " Maintainer: Jiri Brezina <brz@...>
      " URL: http://brz.d2.cz/vim
      " vim:set foldmethod=marker:
      ! " $Revision: 1.6 $
      ! " $Date: 2002/03/25 17:00:36 $

      " Quit when menu translations have already been done.
      if exists("did_menu_trans")
      --- 2,9 ----
      " Maintainer: Jiri Brezina <brz@...>
      " URL: http://brz.d2.cz/vim
      " vim:set foldmethod=marker:
      ! " $Revision: 1.8 $
      ! " $Date: 2002/02/28 09:27:25 $

      " Quit when menu translations have already been done.
      if exists("did_menu_trans")
    • David Brown
      ... The 1.6 version was created because that is where CVS is at. The date is around when I applied the patch to the CVS archive (usually a few hours after
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 16, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 11:02:53PM -0400, Benji Fisher wrote:
        > I am trying to keep two copies of the vim sources: one from CVS
        > (in vim/) and the other from the tarballs and patches (in vim61/). I
        > just updated both, and there are some differences, which worries me. I
        > think all the differences are in comments, but some of these make it
        > unclear which version is more recent, since the one with the earlier
        > date stamp has a later version number. What is going on? I will paste
        > in part of the diff below.

        The 1.6 version was created because that is where CVS is at. The date
        is around when I applied the patch to the CVS archive (usually a few
        hours after Bram sends them out).

        The revision history in the patch probably comes from the maintainer's
        personal archive. Jiri probably has more internal versions that didn't
        make it into patches. It obviously took extra time to make it into vim.

        It doesn't indicate anything is different, other than these headers.

        My suggestion would be, possible as new files come in, to just strip out
        the revision history information from these files. It doesn't really
        convey much useful information, other than when I happened to check it
        into CVS.

        BTW, this particular file has not been mentioned since 6.1a.032. It was
        this patch that added this revision history. CVS, of course, overwrote
        it.

        Dave Brown
      • Bram Moolenaar
        ... What I currently have (not distributed yet) has a Revision number 1.10. But when checking this into/out of CVS might cause it to be changed, it recognizes
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 17, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Benji Fisher wrote:

          > I am trying to keep two copies of the vim sources: one from CVS
          > (in vim/) and the other from the tarballs and patches (in vim61/). I
          > just updated both, and there are some differences, which worries me. I
          > think all the differences are in comments, but some of these make it
          > unclear which version is more recent, since the one with the earlier
          > date stamp has a later version number. What is going on? I will paste
          > in part of the diff below.

          What I currently have (not distributed yet) has a Revision number 1.10.
          But when checking this into/out of CVS might cause it to be changed, it
          recognizes "$Revision". One of the disadvantages of using CVS...

          --
          For large projects, Team Leaders use sophisticated project management software
          to keep track of who's doing what. The software collects the lies and guesses
          of the project team and organizes them in to instantly outdated charts that
          are too boring to look at closely. This is called "planning".
          (Scott Adams - The Dilbert principle)

          /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
          /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.vim.org \\\
          \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.a-a-p.org ///
          \\\ Lord Of The Rings helps Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org/lotr.html ///
        • Benji Fisher
          ... Is that a suggestion for me or for the CVS maintainers? I have been using CVS to keep a clean copy of the sources, to diff against the development version
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 17, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            David Brown wrote:
            >
            > On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 11:02:53PM -0400, Benji Fisher wrote:
            > > I am trying to keep two copies of the vim sources: one from CVS
            > > (in vim/) and the other from the tarballs and patches (in vim61/). I
            > > just updated both, and there are some differences, which worries me. I
            > > think all the differences are in comments, but some of these make it
            > > unclear which version is more recent, since the one with the earlier
            > > date stamp has a later version number. What is going on? I will paste
            > > in part of the diff below.
            >
            > The 1.6 version was created because that is where CVS is at. The date
            > is around when I applied the patch to the CVS archive (usually a few
            > hours after Bram sends them out).
            >
            > The revision history in the patch probably comes from the maintainer's
            > personal archive. Jiri probably has more internal versions that didn't
            > make it into patches. It obviously took extra time to make it into vim.
            >
            > It doesn't indicate anything is different, other than these headers.
            >
            > My suggestion would be, possible as new files come in, to just strip out
            > the revision history information from these files. It doesn't really
            > convey much useful information, other than when I happened to check it
            > into CVS.

            Is that a suggestion for me or for the CVS maintainers?

            I have been using CVS to keep a clean copy of the sources, to diff against
            the development version for Mac OSX. If changes like this creep in, I will have
            to stop using CVS for this.

            --Benji Fisher
          • David Brown
            ... Would you like me to check these into CVS with -ko? With this option, CVS will just preserve whatever string you have in the file. Dave
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 18, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 11:10:42AM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

              > What I currently have (not distributed yet) has a Revision number 1.10.
              > But when checking this into/out of CVS might cause it to be changed, it
              > recognizes "$Revision". One of the disadvantages of using CVS...

              Would you like me to check these into CVS with -ko? With this option,
              CVS will just preserve whatever string you have in the file.

              Dave
            • Bram Moolenaar
              ... I would prefer that the files you obtain from CVS are identical to what you get from the archives. After all, we use CVS only for distribution, not for
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 19, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                David Brown wrote:

                > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 11:10:42AM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                >
                > > What I currently have (not distributed yet) has a Revision number 1.10.
                > > But when checking this into/out of CVS might cause it to be changed, it
                > > recognizes "$Revision". One of the disadvantages of using CVS...
                >
                > Would you like me to check these into CVS with -ko? With this option,
                > CVS will just preserve whatever string you have in the file.

                I would prefer that the files you obtain from CVS are identical to what
                you get from the archives. After all, we use CVS only for distribution,
                not for version control. The version number in CVS doesn't have a
                useful meaning.

                --
                You have heard the saying that if you put a thousand monkeys in a room with a
                thousand typewriters and waited long enough, eventually you would have a room
                full of dead monkeys.
                (Scott Adams - The Dilbert principle)

                /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
                /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.vim.org \\\
                \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.a-a-p.org ///
                \\\ Lord Of The Rings helps Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org/lotr.html ///
              • David Brown
                ... I ll modify my script to add the -ko option then. This will only fix files changed by new patches. Once my work project dies down, I can diff the
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 19, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:02:52AM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

                  > I would prefer that the files you obtain from CVS are identical to what
                  > you get from the archives. After all, we use CVS only for distribution,
                  > not for version control. The version number in CVS doesn't have a
                  > useful meaning.

                  I'll modify my script to add the '-ko' option then. This will only fix
                  files changed by new patches.

                  Once my work project dies down, I can diff the release with patches with
                  the CVS tree and update any other files that have changed headers.

                  Dave Brown
                • Benji Fisher
                  ... Thanks. So far, there are only a few files affected. If the -ko option prevents this sort of difference from creeping into other files, then I can handle
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 19, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David Brown wrote:
                    >
                    > On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:02:52AM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                    >
                    > > I would prefer that the files you obtain from CVS are identical to what
                    > > you get from the archives. After all, we use CVS only for distribution,
                    > > not for version control. The version number in CVS doesn't have a
                    > > useful meaning.
                    >
                    > I'll modify my script to add the '-ko' option then. This will only fix
                    > files changed by new patches.
                    >
                    > Once my work project dies down, I can diff the release with patches with
                    > the CVS tree and update any other files that have changed headers.

                    Thanks. So far, there are only a few files affected. If the -ko option
                    prevents this sort of difference from creeping into other files, then I can
                    handle my local copy and you will not have a very big job when you get around to
                    fixing the existing differences.

                    --Benji Fisher
                  • Benji Fisher
                    ... I just ran cvs update again. Since I am still new to CVS, I may be doing something wrong, but it looks as if two files that were added in Patch 6.1.190
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 30, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Monday, September 16, 2002, at 11:02 PM, Benji Fisher wrote:

                      > I am trying to keep two copies of the vim sources: one from CVS
                      > (in vim/) and the other from the tarballs and patches (in vim61/). I
                      > just updated both, and there are some differences, which worries me.

                      I just ran "cvs update" again. Since I am still new to CVS, I may
                      be doing something wrong, but it looks as if two files that were added
                      in Patch 6.1.190 (src/gui_gtk_vms.h and vimtutor.com) are not in the CVS
                      repository.

                      --Benji Fisher
                    • David Brown
                      ... I ve just added these files. My auto-patch scripts don t yet catch new files. At some point, I will catch this. These will get included by the next tag,
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 30, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:03:02PM -0400, Benji Fisher wrote:

                        > I just ran "cvs update" again. Since I am still new to CVS, I may
                        > be doing something wrong, but it looks as if two files that were added
                        > in Patch 6.1.190 (src/gui_gtk_vms.h and vimtutor.com) are not in the CVS
                        > repository.

                        I've just added these files. My auto-patch scripts don't yet catch new
                        files. At some point, I will catch this.

                        These will get included by the next tag, but a cvs update should grab
                        them.

                        Dave
                      • Benji Fisher
                        ... Yes, it does. Thanks. [fisherfamilycomputer:~/vim-work/vim] benji% cvs update cvs server: Updating . U vimtutor.com cvs server: Updating src U
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 30, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Monday, September 30, 2002, at 03:31 PM, David Brown wrote:

                          > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:03:02PM -0400, Benji Fisher wrote:
                          >
                          >> I just ran "cvs update" again. Since I am still new to CVS, I may
                          >> be doing something wrong, but it looks as if two files that were added
                          >> in Patch 6.1.190 (src/gui_gtk_vms.h and vimtutor.com) are not in the
                          >> CVS
                          >> repository.
                          >
                          > I've just added these files. My auto-patch scripts don't yet catch new
                          > files. At some point, I will catch this.
                          >
                          > These will get included by the next tag, but a cvs update should grab
                          > them.

                          Yes, it does. Thanks.

                          [fisherfamilycomputer:~/vim-work/vim] benji% cvs update
                          cvs server: Updating .
                          U vimtutor.com
                          cvs server: Updating src
                          U src/gui_gtk_vms.h
                          [many other lines snipped]

                          --Benji Fisher
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.