Re: last modified date in CVS

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

Harald Harders wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

>>Please keep in mind that not all developers are on Unix ...

> Oh yes, I sometimes forget this. How do these people work?

With difficulties, needing tools that emulate a Unix environment 
(Cygwin, DJGPP).  I've been in that position myself for quite a while
now --- the machine I spend my days sitting in front of runs Win98.

And there's another gotcha of a client-side approach: not everybody runs 
'prepare' all the time.  On Linux, if your tools are recent, you 
generally can rely on a simple 'make' to get it all right by itself.

> This sounds good. The big advantage of being able to find out of which
> date a CVS version is, is comparability.

On the other hand, any discussion of CVS versions older than 'today' is 
futile by definition.  So we don't need a date stamp on the screen --- 
we only need to know that the binary is built from current sources. 
People who can't be bothered to cvs update and re-build before reporting 
a problem, shouldn't be building from CVS in the first place.

If we were to actually care about behaviour of outdated CVS builds, 
having a public CVS becomes a useless exercise.