Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
I agree that the loginfo handling is basically OK because in my opinion noone will ever commit so many changed files in a single directory that it would choke. But tagging is a different animal completely because here you are always adviced to tag the complete module every so often and if one dir in the module contains *many* files it breaks. I am happy with the present solution, Bo -----Original Message----- From: tmh at nodomain.org [mailto:tmh at nodomain.org] Sent: den 19 december 2002 13:23 To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook Subject: [cvsnt] Re: loginfo is "broken" in build 62 On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:00:31 -0800, "Terris Linenbach" <terris at terris.com> wrote: >My point was that existing scripts are broken, except for yours and any >other script that was written specifically to handle cvsnt build 62 and >later. If such a change was made to loginfo, which surely more people use >compared taginfo, there will be a lot of sore toes. > I haven't changed the logging script here for months and it's working fine. Also the script that feeds cvsnt-commits is the same as the one that comes with Unix CVS. I'm not changing loginfo to make it work like taginfo as it'll be a lot of hard work to rewrite everything. Taginfo was broken, which justified the change (I suspect even Unix would have given up after a few thousand files). Tony _______________________________________________ cvsnt mailing list cvsnt at cvsnt.org cvsnt downloads at march-hare.com @CVSNT on Twitter CVSNT on Facebook http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt https://www.march-hare.com/cvspro/en.asp#downcvs