Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> [pretty please, stop mailing me personally, and keep the discussion on
> the list! :-) ]
Eeek, sorry! Didn't even notice it. Dunno why thunderbird replied to you
instead of the list... and I didn't manually check the "To:" field.
Shouldn't the `Reply-To' be set to firstname.lastname@example.org?
> On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 09:15, Daniel Albuschat wrote:
>>This is a totally different story. In this case, configure.in can be
>>`compiled' to configure. So, of course, you shouldn't put it under
>>version control, since it's redundant and sometimes inconsistent and
>>error-prone (if the configure doesn't match the configure.in, for
> I don't think it's a different story at all. People write build scripts
> that run 'autoconf' on configure.in, which produces configure.
And we don't run any script to create our developer-dependent file.
> who checks out a working copy understands that the build system must
> "convert" the template to an customized, unversioned file.
This is not a template in this sense. It's more a kind of `sourcecode'.
> It doesn't
> matter whether the "conversion" involves running a fancy program like
> autoconf, or if it's just a matter of running 'cp'.
There's a big difference. The resulting file follows totally different
> The point is that
> the customized file is auto-generated in one way or another, so it's the
> template that's put under version control, not the generated file.
In my case, the file is *not* generated in *any way*. As I said, it's
simply sourcecode. And you have to change only the path to the database.
> Unlike SCM tools like clearcase (which come with their own 'make'
> tools), Subversion is not a build system. Our philosophy is to avoid
> adding features that a build system should take care of.
Yep, that's what I think, too. I didn't mention any build system
functionality at all, though.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sun Jul 18 22:39:55 2004