| 1 |
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 18:01 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 05:34:14PM -0800, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 06:27 -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Due to how CVS hooks operate, it's not quite possible. |
| 5 |
> > > You wouldn't be able to block the entire commit, only the contents of |
| 6 |
> > > the files/ directory would get totally blocked. |
| 7 |
> > > If you were committing an ebuild along with a patch, this would be very |
| 8 |
> > > bad, as the ebuild+Manifest would get committed, but the patch wouldn't. |
| 9 |
> > Bleh... CVS vs. SVN. There's no "pre-commit" equivalent on CVS? |
| 10 |
> There is pre-commit, but it's not recursive. It gets applied to only a |
| 11 |
> single directory and in isolation from the other directories. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
OK. So we could block on commits of digest-* files to files, right? |
| 14 |
What else would we need? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > Also, wouldn't the second Manifest run "fix" the missing digest commit? |
| 17 |
> In what way? the problem I was concerned about was non-digest files |
| 18 |
> not being committed leading to broken ebuilds. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ahh, never mind... I was thinking of something else. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 24 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 25 |
Games Developer |
Archives