stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Travis Vitek <vi...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: _RWSTD_VER value on trunk
Date Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:29:27 GMT



Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
> Travis Vitek wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> This has been bugging me -- when someone checks out trunk, does a build
>>> and sends
>>> us build results, we have no way of telling that the build results are,
>>> in
>>> fact, for trunk and
>>> not for 4.2.0 (or the head of 4.2.x), because the value of _RWSTD_VER is
>>> the same. I
>>> think we should change it so that the value is unique for each branch,
>>> or
>>> at least distinct
>>> from any release.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions for what would be a good value?
>>>
>> 
>> Martin,
>> 
>> If all you care about is detecting what branch the results are for, why
>> can't we just dump $HeadURL$ of the GNUmakefile to the top of the build
>> results?
> 
> Yes, I think that's what Mark meant. I like the idea I just wasn't
> sure I wasn't missing some downside since we'd be taking the macro
> out of $TOPDIR/include/rw/_config.h and moving it to the generated
> config header in $BUILDDIR. I.e., it won't be possible to grep for
> the macro in the freshly downloaded/extracted sources to find the
> version -- see my comments below:
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-_RWSTD_VER-value-on-trunk-p14340222.html
> 
> But unless someone does come up with a problem I'll go ahead and
> cook up something along these lines.
> 
> Martin
> 

I think you are taking this a bit further than I am talking about. In your
original post you say we don't really have no way to tell which branch the
user did their build from. I'm saying just add a target to the GNUmakefile
that dumps the expanded $HeadURL$ string, and then use it in the build
process.

It sounds like you are trying to establish a strict mapping between the
library version and where the sources are kept in subversion. What do other
subversion projects do about this?

It seems that this wouldn't be a problem if we had a 4.2.1 branch and we
could 'encourage' users to leave the intermediate branches [the ones used
for merging] alone.

Travis
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-svn-commit%3A-r597396----incubator-stdcxx-branches-4.2.x-tests-numerics-26.valarray.cassign.cpp-tp13905517p14410574.html
Sent from the stdcxx-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message