> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:48:25 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> RS> Actually, for branches, I agree that (a) is reasonable. However, for
> DS> RS> main, I like (b) better. eg, right now I see main as "what will be
> DS> RS> 5.2",
> DS> RS> not "what was 5.1 + changes" (that would be v5-1-patches).
> DS>
> DS> OK - fair comment.
> DS> I'm not totally happy with "5.2-less-a-bit"
> DS> but you're correct that "5.1+changes" isn't right either.
>
> I think I actually proposed "pre-5.2". Or we could disassociate with a release
> completely, and just use "cvs-main", though at that point more detail really
> becomes necessary.
>
> DS> I think we need some input on this one....
>
> Agreed...
The reason I suggested my program was that it would be run against your local CVS as part of the build. I just tried it (P-III 866MHz):
: time ./genversion 2004/06/26:13:37:46UTC
real 0m0.029s user 0m0.010s sys 0m0.020s
It gives you an exact CVS timestamp.
It doesn't have to be C. It could be done almost as simply in perl or python. I'm not volunteering to translate it. :-)
--
There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes.
-- Dr. Who-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
