Dean Roehrich writes: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:23:10PM -0500, James Carlson wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the issue you're raising, but 'cdm' should > > be kept in sync with Mercurial as much as is needed. It shouldn't be > > something that individuals ever have to do ... it's a software > > dependency (and thus consolidation and distribution) issue between > > Mercurial and a plug-in module. > > I guess this issue would be handled by a note to on-all announcing a flag day > and telling people to refresh their build tools?
If necessary. It all depends on how cdm is packaged and delivered and how dependencies are maintained. The ideal situation would be to have cdm delivered through the same package repository as hg itself, and versioned such that you simply cannot get the two out of step -- the same as we do for all of the other complicated software dependencies in the system. In any event, it sounds like an issue to bring up at an eventual ARC review, but not something that (assuming the right job gets done) is ever handled by a developer. (It's akin to the glibc-of-the-moment problem that some other platforms have. You either manage your dependencies well, or you don't. We generally aim for the former. ;-}) > So the piece we're missing...the gate-side piece which repeats at least some > parts of comchk. Given Rich's earlier comment, I guess no one has looked at > doing this? Not that I know of; many of the gate-side parts are on the to-do list. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
