[Box Backup-dev] 07-win32-fixes
Chris Wilson
boxbackup-dev at fluffy.co.uk
Mon Dec 12 19:42:49 GMT 2005
Hi all,
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Martin Ebourne wrote:
> I'm still not sure why I'm project merger, and I'm not all that keen to
> keep the position! I've ended up being the release manager at work as
> well, and I don't want that position either!
I'm happy to volunteer for this role if you don't want it, but I
appreciate your help in reviewing the changes and your advice in general.
> In BackupClientFileAttributes::ReadAttributes there is a new section of
> code which says "this is to catch those problems with invalid time
> stamps stored". Is this a windows only problem, or could this happen
> also on Unix? Should the check be cross platform?
Better ask Nick about that. I don't know why it would be necessary, but if
it is, I agree that it should be cross-platform.
> I would like to try to remove most of the WIN32 uses by having proper feature
> tests in configure.ac rather than using the platform define.
Seems like a good idea to me. Please go ahead, or I can try my hand if you
prefer.
> Later on we can try and do the same for the conditional code sections.
> In a couple of cases I think we can make them more generic and remove
> conditionality.
I agree in general, but which cases?
> I'm happy to merge as is and fix this up later, but will need Chris's help
> for this.
Of course, I'm happy to help with whatever you ask.
> I'm planning to merge with the following command:
>
> svn merge -r111:187 chris/win32/merge/08-file-renames trunk
Sorry, 08-file-renames is obsolete - I never used it, and it's out of date
compared to 07-win32-fixes.
> I'd also like to request that in future we don't proliferate so many
> branches. I checked out a working copy of the whole repository and it takes
> 2.5GB of disk!
But copying is free (on the server) and making a copy is supposed to be a
standard (only?) way of creating a tag or branch with SVN, as far as I
know. I don't think you're supposed to check out the whole repository :-).
> We want to make big changes on a branch, and occasionally it is useful
> to create a new branch, but I don't think it helps to create a new
> branch for each cumulative change to a tree. In SVN each checkin is
> referred to by a single number so unlike CVS it is always easy to cherry
> pick complete changes out of the history. With a suitable log comment
> each point in time is just as accessible on a single branch line as it
> is by branching at each stage.
But searching through log comments is much harder than looking through a
directory tree. Nevertheless, if people don't want me to create so many
tags, I will refrain.
> It would probably help to remove some of the branches after the dust has
> settled. They wouldn't be lost of course, just no longer in the latest
> version.
Sure, that's fine with me, they will be obsolete anyway after the merge.
Cheers, Chris.
--
_ ___ __ _
/ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK |
/ (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer |
\ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software |
More information about the Boxbackup-dev
mailing list