Re: sourceforge issues

[Zefram <zefram@xxxxxxxx>]

Peter Stephenson wrote:
>- Sven (and everyone else), I'm afraid you're now responsible for adding
>  your own ChangeLog entries, ideally in the same commit.  Bummer.  (Tee,
>  hee, hee.)

Feature.  The lack of this kind of convention is one of the things that
bugged me about the old single-maintainer repository system.

>- Geoff, I agree the number of tags makes things difficult.  I won't be
>  adding per-patch tags myself, though I can see the point of it since CVS
>  doesn't make it easy for you to regenerate a patch otherwise.  It
>  would probably be good to remove the old ones, though it's quite useful
>  to be able to go straight to what a patch did.

In my personal repository, I always used to include the patch number
(from the mailing list) in the log message.  This doesn't make it *easy*
to extract the patch from the archive, but it makes it possible (it
certainly points you towards a good set of date tags to compare), and in
cases where the patch exists separately (e.g., it's on the mailing list)
it provides a handy reference.  If we're going to have patches in CVS
that don't appear on the mailing list, it's still possible to come up with
unique IDs: we just need to each keep track of our own sequence numbers.

>  As far as I can see the cvsweb.cgi interface needs you to tell it a
>  version number which would put paid to this.  The may be some feature
>  I haven't seen.

The pseudo-label "HEAD" is supposed to evaluate to the latest
version on the trunk.  Does this web interface accept version labels?

-zefram