kevin at ie.suberic.net
Mon Oct 10 19:51:06 UTC 2011
Sorry for mail format, replying on phone during a break in class. In the
past ado has incremented the sccs release number. There was a reset of all
numbers to 8.1 at one point for instance.
Based on the sccs tools that would be easier for him to important changes
made in his absence.
I can redo my patch if you would like.
On Oct 10, 2011 8:17 PM, "Robert Elz" <kre at munnari.oz.au> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:42:16 +0200
> From: David Zülke <david.zuelke at bitextender.com>
> Message-ID: <D6D084ED-BABA-4BF7-BA4F-69CA4C3FC41A at bitextender.com>
> | You did not increment the version numbers in the files you changed,
> Ian Abbott indicated the source of those, but not withstanding that, I
> have updated them (manually) I just decided not to, for now. However, if
> having those version numbers updated is useful to people (and I know they
> been used in the past to confirm that you are at the latest version in
> case of apparent discrepancies) I can do it - if that's what people prefer.
> I can see three ways (and there could of course be more) that that could be
> done - aside from just doing nothing ... First, would be to pretend to be
> sccs, and produce numbers indistinguishable from what it would produce.
> Second, would be to modify the numbers in a way sccs would not, but still
> allow them to move "forward" - the easy way to do that would be to append
> a sub-version number (making say 8.50.1 for northamerica) and just
> continue from there, leaving 8.51 for ado's next version, if that ever
> happens. [Aside: yes, I know a sccs branch could produce a number like
> but the tz files have no branches, and in any case, sccs would add 2
> sub-version numbers, I believe, never just one.] Or, third, I could
> my owv version numbers to run in parallel - I have the data in RCS files
> (just for convenience, some of you probably already detected that from
> at the precise details of the diff I sent out) and RCS has its own version
> numbering scheme, I could just add those version numbers (they they could
> removed again sometime later).
> Which do you all prefer?
> Řyvind Holm <sunny at sunbase.org> said:
> | But I notice there's lots of unrelated files and directories in the pub/
> | directory. Would it be possible to move the files into a separate
> | directory
> Of course, it would be possible, but for now I don't think I'll do that.
> As much as possible I'd prefer to retain as much of the style of ado's
> distributions as possible - they were in pub at elsie, the files have also
> always been in pub on munnari, I think just leaving them in pub on munnari
> is adequate for now. After all, at least for now, there are just two
> (and later perhaps 4 if/when we add detatched signatures).
> The oldtz directory is just for us here, no normal humans should be going
> near it, it is of sudden interest only because people have been (quite well
> it seems) looking for methods to re-create ado's sccs database (in other
> version control systems) and so need access to all the earlier data.
> fine (for that purpose, or just to retain it for posterity) but it isn't
> something that should, or rationally would want, to otherwise be widely
> And lastly Kevin Lyda <kevin at ie.suberic.net> said:
> | There are several places in the code that refer to the ftp server and
> | mailing list on elsie.
> I suspect the elsie mailing list is dead forever now, and the iana version
> will take over, so those changes (thanks for the patch) make sense. I'm
> not sure yet about the source repository doc changes, why not just wait
> a little longer until we see how the dust settles on that before we
> start documenting the current (temporary) arrangements ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tz