Doug, This problem is not intractable. The CVSSpam solution looks like an approach that works. I would be willing to run a patch that implements this against the testsuite. I use CVS, and would certainly love to upgrade to a Scmbug version that fixes this.
On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 -0400, Doug McNeil wrote: > Hello, > > I am investigating using scmbug to integrate with a cvs repository and > bugzilla (somewhat back on the versions: cvs->1.11.17 and > bugzilla->2.18). I think this would be useful for us, but I am getting > resistance because of BUG 265 and the whole *multiple comments* issue. > Is it really intractable? I have briefly looked at the CVSSpam solution, > but I have not been through the scmbug code (my perl skills are 5 years > out of date) so I have no idea how difficult it would be to even > prototype something that *might* work. Before I make the effort I would > like a feeling for if I am just going to spend a bunch of time and end > up with something that just cannot cut it. > > Perhaps I can use this to justify moving to *svn*? I'm not sure that moving from cvs to svn on a project you've been running for a while, and which already has integration would be wise. What happens to the integration messages in your bug-tracking that already report CVS version numbers in changes ? You'd be throwing away your integration history. But one could use any argument to justify anything...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ scmbug-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users
