Quoth Steve Fairhead <mailto:steve@fivetrees.com>:
> However, I can offer plenty of counter arguments. Consider a
> project where some data files are built by some utilities,
> also within the project (the ./configure example has been
> used before). Whether or not the makefile figures it needs to
> rebuild the data files is currently a roll of the dice. In
> fact, the ability of the makefile to infer *any* kind of
> status of the component parts of some entity is entirely
> nuked by svn. As far as I can see, you have no choice *but*
> to do a make clean anyway.
Of course you do: don't put object files into version control in the
first place. There's no point in doing that, since they can always be
rebuilt from the source anyway. Since 'svn update' only updates the
timestamp if it does result in the file being changed, then the output
files will only get recompiled when they actually need to be; and since
it updates it to the current time, not the commit time, then they *will*
get built when they need to be (if it used the commit time then it'd be
semi-random whether they got built or not, which'd be a Bad Thing[tm]).
So in the 'configure' script case, if you have autoconf sources in your
project then you shouldn't commit the configure script itself.
Regardless of that, you shouldn't commit the config.status file or any
other output files that the configure script generates, either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 30 00:40:29 2006