On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 11:32:45AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > Doing this daily isn't too horrid. Use the rsync version and tag > a tree daily. Thats more or less what I do.
I might switch to that. But won't I still have a problem of our cvs expanding keywords breaking the next patch that gets too near them? > Yeap. One thing you can try is to un-export the keywords first. Ie > change them back into BK Id: %x% %..% I don't understand. > Smaller hunks and change 'em back into the unexported form? Again I don't think I understand what you mean by "unexported form". Right now I am burning plenty of computrons and rattling the disk a lot (let's hear it for otherwise idle machines) by exporting two complete trees, running a slow perl script over both to remove expansions of dollar-Id, and now dollar-Revision, make my own diff -Nru of that, and then I guess I will have to patch by hand a zillion annoying recent changes to the placement dollar-Id in sparc64 files. And then I will tackle whatever I discover is still not patching after my modified perl script finishes running. I am starting to think that trying to run a shadow source code controlled repository is a mistake. Am I dragging along unadvisable mental baggage from the old days of developing proprietary code? Do I need to take a deep breath here, hold my nose, have faith in The Source, and leap?? Am I foolishly fighting Bitkeeper by trying to stick with cvs internally? Do I need to just give in on Bitkeeper? Thanks, -kb, the Kent who is coming to hate source code control system keywords with more and more authority each day. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
