On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 09:25:12AM -0400, Kent Borg wrote: > > 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.
Okay. Before you import from say rsync to CVS, go and change all of the PPC files from: BK Id: SCCS/s.setup.c 1.73 10/02/01 10:06:27 paulus to: BK Id: %F% %I% %G% %U% %#% And then import. The keyword section will always be the same, and CVS should be quite. I haven't tried this yet tho. > > Smaller hunks and change 'em back into the unexported form? > > Again I don't think I understand what you mean by "unexported form". Oh. BK tags, which CVS chokes on have expanded and unxpanded forms just like the CVS ones. > 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. Ah, you're being too zellous in your attempts. If you do -ko on the import of files like sparc64, it will treat the $Id$ stuff as normal text. This doesn't work on the BK ids which is chokes on anyhow. The other thing I do, since this isn't fully automated, is if files end up being unhappy after CVS merge is to cat the original over 'em. This only works on files I don't change tho. :) > 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? That's a bit for another 'discussion'. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
