Item10452: Fix Build script for Foswiki to not build ,v files the right way
Priority: Normal
Current State: Closed
Released In: 1.1.3
Target Release: patch
Every since Foswiki 1.0.0 we have not been shipping ,v files with our distribution.
It was an idea of a single person from the old project that all the core documentation had the history shipped with it.
For many releases these ,v files were relative to Cairo and totally lost their value.
This was fixed at some point. And we then created ,v files relative to the ,v files stored in a tag on SVN.
But at some point someone made a plain code error in the tools/build.pl so the variable that holds the old release went out of scope before it was used. And this again meant that the code that generates ,v files was never run.
All all have been happy with this.
It is also a fact that all extensions we build and distribute on foswiki.org have no ,v files either.
Our code has recently been fixed so it shows rev 1 and upgrades to rev 2 at first edit and save.
There is no doubt that having ,v files with the history of the core documentation is silly. We overwrite the ,v files that people may have created by editing documentation in System or Main web when you upgrade and the history is either errors corrected or out of date information. It makes no sense at all.
One could argue that we should at least ship the default ,v file for rev 1. I do not think so but in case someone insists and can manage to get a majority behind this I have decided to.
- Remove the code that checked out a tag version of Foswiki looking for old ,v files. There is no way we will go back to this again.
- Fix the code so that it can create the ,v files but fool the good old code to simply apply a new rcs checkin of rev 1.
- Disable this code (can be re-enabled by removing one # from the code) so that we continue shipping without ,v files.
At least the build script now does what the code says it should do and not having a behaviour that depends on a scope programming bug.
--
KennethLavrsen - 07 Mar 2011
ack. excellent.
--
SvenDowideit - 08 Mar 2011