You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2012/03/07 12:27:32 UTC
SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
A question for SVN experts: can we create an export or something like
that that puts the trunk version of docs/log-message-tags/ in
the 2.4 branch, so that there exists only 1 canonical version
and it lives in trunk but is "referred" to in the 2.4 branch?
On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> hi Jim,
>
> On 07.03.2012 00:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Oh yeah... and how do we worry about keeping things in sync. For
>> example, right now trunk uses 02298 and 02299, but 2.4 does not.
>> When another log entry is added to 2.4, do we use these or skip
>> these???
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm... anyone else noticing that the httpd-2.4 branch is lacking
>>> the docs/log-message-tags/ dir?
>
> I asked the question in the "Questions" thread end of January:
>
> >> 2) log tags
> >> ===========
> >>
> >> r1209743 | sf | 2011-12-02 23:26:54 +0100 (Fri, 02 Dec 2011) | 3
> >> lines Add APLOGNO() macro for unique tags for every log message.
> >> Add some scripts to make adding these tags easier.
> >>
> >> This has only been backported partially. The directory
> >> docs/log-message-tags is mising in 2.4.x as well as the
> >> update-log-tags and update-log-msg-tags targets in Makefile.
>
> Stefan answered on Jan. 31st:
>
> > This is intentional and not for backport. The log tags should be
> > consistent between trunk and the branches, so there can be only one
> > "docs/log-message-tags/next-number" file, and that resides in trunk.
> > That means if an error message is introduced in 2.4 but not in trunk,
> > the next-number file in trunk should be updated.
> >
> > But there should probably be a docs/log-message-tags/README file in
> > 2.4 that explains this. I will write something when I have time. But
> > as a non-code change, this is not that urgent.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 07 Mar 2012, at 3:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Sure... just let me know what to do...
For docs, you just do this:
svn checkout https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/docs-build/trunk docs/manual/build
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 7, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> svn ps svn:externals 'tags-thingy ^/httpd/httpd/trunk/tags-thingy'
What about the the fact that docs/log-message-tags already
exists? Does that change it?
btw:, I expect that the actual command is
svn ps svn:externals 'log-message-tags ^/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags' ??
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
>
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> > On 07 Mar 2012, at 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>> Would it not be safer to give instructions to drop a particular
> >>> path into the tree in order to allocate a number, the same way
> >>> the "build" directory is dropped into the documentation tree?
> >>>
> >>> This could solve the tags-have-moved problem.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sure... whatever works :)
> >>
> >> I'm ez :)
> >
> > Keen to keep it consistent if practical :)
> >
>
> Sure... just let me know what to do...
svn ps svn:externals 'tags-thingy ^/httpd/httpd/trunk/tags-thingy'
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 07 Mar 2012, at 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>> Would it not be safer to give instructions to drop a particular path into the tree in order to allocate a number, the same way the "build" directory is dropped into the documentation tree?
>>>
>>> This could solve the tags-have-moved problem.
>>>
>>
>> Sure... whatever works :)
>>
>> I'm ez :)
>
> Keen to keep it consistent if practical :)
>
Sure... just let me know what to do...
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 07 Mar 2012, at 2:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Would it not be safer to give instructions to drop a particular path into the tree in order to allocate a number, the same way the "build" directory is dropped into the documentation tree?
>>
>> This could solve the tags-have-moved problem.
>>
>
> Sure... whatever works :)
>
> I'm ez :)
Keen to keep it consistent if practical :)
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 7, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 07 Mar 2012, at 1:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>> Would we ever use this on the v2.4 branch at all?
>>>
>>
>> Sure... assume a case with 2.4.10 and trunk has changed enough
>> that to fix a bug in 2.4.10, there is no direct backport, but
>> rather a one-off.
>
> Would it not be safer to give instructions to drop a particular path into the tree in order to allocate a number, the same way the "build" directory is dropped into the documentation tree?
>
> This could solve the tags-have-moved problem.
>
Sure... whatever works :)
I'm ez :)
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 07 Mar 2012, at 1:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Would we ever use this on the v2.4 branch at all?
>>
>
> Sure... assume a case with 2.4.10 and trunk has changed enough
> that to fix a bug in 2.4.10, there is no direct backport, but
> rather a one-off.
Would it not be safer to give instructions to drop a particular path into the tree in order to allocate a number, the same way the "build" directory is dropped into the documentation tree?
This could solve the tags-have-moved problem.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 07 Mar 2012, at 1:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> A question for SVN experts: can we create an export or something like
>> that that puts the trunk version of docs/log-message-tags/ in
>> the 2.4 branch, so that there exists only 1 canonical version
>> and it lives in trunk but is "referred" to in the 2.4 branch?
>
> Would we ever use this on the v2.4 branch at all?
>
Sure... assume a case with 2.4.10 and trunk has changed enough
that to fix a bug in 2.4.10, there is no direct backport, but
rather a one-off.
I don't feel strongly one way or another but the previous
situation was untenable.
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 07 Mar 2012, at 1:27 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> A question for SVN experts: can we create an export or something like
> that that puts the trunk version of docs/log-message-tags/ in
> the 2.4 branch, so that there exists only 1 canonical version
> and it lives in trunk but is "referred" to in the 2.4 branch?
Would we ever use this on the v2.4 branch at all?
In theory, nothing should hit v2.4 that isn't already on trunk, and a log message in v2.4 should definitely mirror the same log message in trunk. If I'm understanding this correctly, we're worrying about something that should in theory never be used.
Ideally we just need a README of some kind to indicate briefly how it works, and to look in trunk. We shouldn't encourage v2.4 having messages of it's own.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
2012/3/7 Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> svn:externals is only a client-side mechanism. This will not bring
>> log-message-tags/ into the branch, and especially not within the tag.
>>
>> In essence, you will not be able to recreate any specific state in
>> time (or a release!) because of this. The repository doesn't actually
>> reflect the state that you're trying to capture.
>>
>> You could construct a tarball for 2.4.x, but a week later, that
>> tarball cannot be reconstructed. The checksums will not match. etc.
>
> Huh?
>
> svn externals can reference a specific revision.
With recent versions of Subversion, sure. But regardless, look at
Jim's copy/paste. There is no pegged revision.
Cheers,
-g
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 3/7/2012 5:40 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> svn:externals is only a client-side mechanism. This will not bring
> log-message-tags/ into the branch, and especially not within the tag.
Right, in this case it's fine.
This is a 'for programmer's reference' datum that isn't needed when we
export the tarball, and in fact should be purged on export.
It's needed for day-to-day assignment of error codes, so its state at
any given time isn't relevant, it's most recent state is critical.
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 06:59, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:40 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> svn:externals is only a client-side mechanism. This will not bring
>> log-message-tags/ into the branch, and especially not within the tag.
>>
>
> Which is fine... docs/log-message-tags isn't part of the
> releasable data for a branch anyway. It's a developer artifact
> only.
Ah! Then the externals solution is Just Fine!
Cheers,
-g
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:40 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> svn:externals is only a client-side mechanism. This will not bring
> log-message-tags/ into the branch, and especially not within the tag.
>
Which is fine... docs/log-message-tags isn't part of the
releasable data for a branch anyway. It's a developer artifact
only.
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
> svn:externals is only a client-side mechanism. This will not bring
> log-message-tags/ into the branch, and especially not within the tag.
>
> In essence, you will not be able to recreate any specific state in
> time (or a release!) because of this. The repository doesn't actually
> reflect the state that you're trying to capture.
>
> You could construct a tarball for 2.4.x, but a week later, that
> tarball cannot be reconstructed. The checksums will not match. etc.
Huh?
svn externals can reference a specific revision.
> My suggestion would be to add a step to the T&R instructions to do a
> merge from trunk over to the branch before processing a release.
> Thus,
> the branch will get a snapshot of the log-message-tags at the time of
> release.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 06:33, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > Never mind, I hope I did it correctly :)
> >
> > % cat la
> > log-message-tags
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags
> > % pwd
> > blahblah.../dev/httpd-2.4/docs
> > % svn propset svn:externals . -F la
> > property 'svn:externals' set on '.'
> > % svn up
> > Fetching external item into 'log-message-tags':
> > A log-message-tags/update-log-msg-tags
> > A log-message-tags/find-messages.cocci
> > A log-message-tags/next-number
> > A log-message-tags/macros.h
> > A log-message-tags/README
> > Updated external to revision 1297944.
> >
> >
> > On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >> A question for SVN experts: can we create an export or something
> >> like
> >> that that puts the trunk version of docs/log-message-tags/ in
> >> the 2.4 branch, so that there exists only 1 canonical version
> >> and it lives in trunk but is "referred" to in the 2.4 branch?
> >> On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> >>
> >>> hi Jim,
> >>>
> >>> On 07.03.2012 00:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>>> Oh yeah... and how do we worry about keeping things in sync. For
> >>>> example, right now trunk uses 02298 and 02299, but 2.4 does not.
> >>>> When another log entry is added to 2.4, do we use these or skip
> >>>> these???
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hmmm... anyone else noticing that the httpd-2.4 branch is
> >>>>> lacking
> >>>>> the docs/log-message-tags/ dir?
> >>>
> >>> I asked the question in the "Questions" thread end of January:
> >>>
> >>>>> 2) log tags
> >>>>> ===========
> >>>>>
> >>>>> r1209743 | sf | 2011-12-02 23:26:54 +0100 (Fri, 02 Dec 2011) |
> >>>>> 3
> >>>>> lines Add APLOGNO() macro for unique tags for every log
> >>>>> message.
> >>>>> Add some scripts to make adding these tags easier.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This has only been backported partially. The directory
> >>>>> docs/log-message-tags is mising in 2.4.x as well as the
> >>>>> update-log-tags and update-log-msg-tags targets in Makefile.
> >>>
> >>> Stefan answered on Jan. 31st:
> >>>
> >>>> This is intentional and not for backport. The log tags should be
> >>>> consistent between trunk and the branches, so there can be only
> >>>> one
> >>>> "docs/log-message-tags/next-number" file, and that resides in
> >>>> trunk.
> >>>> That means if an error message is introduced in 2.4 but not in
> >>>> trunk,
> >>>> the next-number file in trunk should be updated.
> >>>>
> >>>> But there should probably be a docs/log-message-tags/README file
> >>>> in
> >>>> 2.4 that explains this. I will write something when I have time.
> >>>> But
> >>>> as a non-code change, this is not that urgent.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Rainer
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
svn:externals is only a client-side mechanism. This will not bring
log-message-tags/ into the branch, and especially not within the tag.
In essence, you will not be able to recreate any specific state in
time (or a release!) because of this. The repository doesn't actually
reflect the state that you're trying to capture.
You could construct a tarball for 2.4.x, but a week later, that
tarball cannot be reconstructed. The checksums will not match. etc.
My suggestion would be to add a step to the T&R instructions to do a
merge from trunk over to the branch before processing a release. Thus,
the branch will get a snapshot of the log-message-tags at the time of
release.
Cheers,
-g
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 06:33, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Never mind, I hope I did it correctly :)
>
> % cat la
> log-message-tags https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags
> % pwd
> blahblah.../dev/httpd-2.4/docs
> % svn propset svn:externals . -F la
> property 'svn:externals' set on '.'
> % svn up
> Fetching external item into 'log-message-tags':
> A log-message-tags/update-log-msg-tags
> A log-message-tags/find-messages.cocci
> A log-message-tags/next-number
> A log-message-tags/macros.h
> A log-message-tags/README
> Updated external to revision 1297944.
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> A question for SVN experts: can we create an export or something like
>> that that puts the trunk version of docs/log-message-tags/ in
>> the 2.4 branch, so that there exists only 1 canonical version
>> and it lives in trunk but is "referred" to in the 2.4 branch?
>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>>> hi Jim,
>>>
>>> On 07.03.2012 00:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> Oh yeah... and how do we worry about keeping things in sync. For
>>>> example, right now trunk uses 02298 and 02299, but 2.4 does not.
>>>> When another log entry is added to 2.4, do we use these or skip
>>>> these???
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm... anyone else noticing that the httpd-2.4 branch is lacking
>>>>> the docs/log-message-tags/ dir?
>>>
>>> I asked the question in the "Questions" thread end of January:
>>>
>>>>> 2) log tags
>>>>> ===========
>>>>>
>>>>> r1209743 | sf | 2011-12-02 23:26:54 +0100 (Fri, 02 Dec 2011) | 3
>>>>> lines Add APLOGNO() macro for unique tags for every log message.
>>>>> Add some scripts to make adding these tags easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has only been backported partially. The directory
>>>>> docs/log-message-tags is mising in 2.4.x as well as the
>>>>> update-log-tags and update-log-msg-tags targets in Makefile.
>>>
>>> Stefan answered on Jan. 31st:
>>>
>>>> This is intentional and not for backport. The log tags should be
>>>> consistent between trunk and the branches, so there can be only one
>>>> "docs/log-message-tags/next-number" file, and that resides in trunk.
>>>> That means if an error message is introduced in 2.4 but not in trunk,
>>>> the next-number file in trunk should be updated.
>>>>
>>>> But there should probably be a docs/log-message-tags/README file in
>>>> 2.4 that explains this. I will write something when I have time. But
>>>> as a non-code change, this is not that urgent.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rainer
>>>
>>
>
Re: SVN question (Was: Re: log-message-tags)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Never mind, I hope I did it correctly :)
% cat la
log-message-tags https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/log-message-tags
% pwd
blahblah.../dev/httpd-2.4/docs
% svn propset svn:externals . -F la
property 'svn:externals' set on '.'
% svn up
Fetching external item into 'log-message-tags':
A log-message-tags/update-log-msg-tags
A log-message-tags/find-messages.cocci
A log-message-tags/next-number
A log-message-tags/macros.h
A log-message-tags/README
Updated external to revision 1297944.
On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> A question for SVN experts: can we create an export or something like
> that that puts the trunk version of docs/log-message-tags/ in
> the 2.4 branch, so that there exists only 1 canonical version
> and it lives in trunk but is "referred" to in the 2.4 branch?
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 7:43 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> hi Jim,
>>
>> On 07.03.2012 00:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Oh yeah... and how do we worry about keeping things in sync. For
>>> example, right now trunk uses 02298 and 02299, but 2.4 does not.
>>> When another log entry is added to 2.4, do we use these or skip
>>> these???
>>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 6:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm... anyone else noticing that the httpd-2.4 branch is lacking
>>>> the docs/log-message-tags/ dir?
>>
>> I asked the question in the "Questions" thread end of January:
>>
>>>> 2) log tags
>>>> ===========
>>>>
>>>> r1209743 | sf | 2011-12-02 23:26:54 +0100 (Fri, 02 Dec 2011) | 3
>>>> lines Add APLOGNO() macro for unique tags for every log message.
>>>> Add some scripts to make adding these tags easier.
>>>>
>>>> This has only been backported partially. The directory
>>>> docs/log-message-tags is mising in 2.4.x as well as the
>>>> update-log-tags and update-log-msg-tags targets in Makefile.
>>
>> Stefan answered on Jan. 31st:
>>
>>> This is intentional and not for backport. The log tags should be
>>> consistent between trunk and the branches, so there can be only one
>>> "docs/log-message-tags/next-number" file, and that resides in trunk.
>>> That means if an error message is introduced in 2.4 but not in trunk,
>>> the next-number file in trunk should be updated.
>>>
>>> But there should probably be a docs/log-message-tags/README file in
>>> 2.4 that explains this. I will write something when I have time. But
>>> as a non-code change, this is not that urgent.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>