James Carlson <james.d.carlson at Sun.COM> writes: > 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.
cdm is in SUNWonbld, mercurial is the one in the WOS, SUNWmercurial. There's no dependencies set at the packaging level, currently. > 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. I don't see any way to achieve that, SUNWonbld shouldn't be in the WOS, SUNWmercurial should. Apparently using the SUNWmercurial from the WOS is seen as desirable. > 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. An ARC review of the tools? of mercurial? The tools aren't interface delivered to users, I think the appropriate thing would be a contract between the ON C-Team and SFW for the mercurial internals. -- Rich
