--- Frederic Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote: > > >The generated files don't need to be revision > controlled, but they need to > >be available to people or tools who cannot run the > tool that generates the > >files. The most convenient way to make the files > available is to put them > >into the repository alongside the other files that > are also needed. The > >side effect of this is that the files become > revision controlled. > > but then I wrote: > > > --- If these are different, then Makefile.cache > is replaced with > > the new version. The next cvs commit will > commit the new > > Makefile.cache along with any new or changed > source files. > > > I just realized that this explains why, in this > case, the files *must* be > revision controlled. The new version of > Makefile.cache corresponds to the > new versions of the other files in the directory.
I don't understand, if Makefile.cache has to be in synch with the other files: 1. Why are there systems that are able to commit, but can't build Makefile.cache? 2. Why would you not want to commit Makefile.cache once it's regenerated? 3. Why can't the build system just generate Makefile.cache without it being versioned? Noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
