Yes this is helpful. Now I understand much better what you were
saying. I will definitively do that!
Thanks you Yarko.

massimo

On Apr 10, 10:15 am, Yarko Tymciurak <resultsinsoftw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:28 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
> > I need to be educated. Here is my problem.
>
> Ok - this is rather simple...  I can help...
>
>
>
> > I gave myself a rule of tagging releases as 1.XX.YY. The fact is that
> > I commit before I build the binaries. It occasionally happens that I
> > commit 1.XX.YY, build the binary and then I discover a problem (for
> > example a file was missing because I forgot to hg add it). So I make
> > the change and I commit again with the same tag. I can put the R in
> > front as you suggest but this is not going to avoid this occasional
> > problem.
>
> For the moment, let's forget the "R" --- and let's keep use of
> terminology consistent.
> Right now you are setting the VERSION file, and putting the VERSION
> number in comments.
>
> Strictly speaking, you are not "TAG"ing the release, as you are not
> using the mercurial TAG command, nor creating a mercurial TAG.  A TAG
> is something which will propogate to releaes - i.e. this tag will even
> be in my local repository when I clone, and I can use with all the
> mercurial commands.
>
> Your "labeling of version number"  - as it is now - will not help with
> _any_ of the mercurial commands:  since it is not a TAG, mercurial
> does not know about it.   It is nothing more than checkin comment
> "text" - the meaning you place on it is a human one, by convention -
> it is not following the mercurial "convention" of using the TAG
> command, so that mercurial commands to not know about it.    BTW -
> this discussion holds equally for ANY of the other version control
> systems:  that is, you should use the system's tagging commands to tag
> releases in CVS, SVN, git, bazaar, ...
>
>
>
> > In the recent times I have automated the build process of binaries and
> > these errors are going to be minimized if not disappear and release
> > tags will be unique as you suggest.
>
> Since a mercurial TAG is nothing more than an alias - a way mercurial
> associates a "name":  a string of human choice - with a revision set,
> you can update what the TAG is associated with in such cases.
>
> There may have been a time when TAGging in mercurial required a follow-
> up checkin (I am not sure), but this is not true any longer.  When you
> tag, the TAGS file is udpated, and cached.
>
> You can see how this works with a simple test (I am assuming a bash
> shell):
>
> $ mkdir repo1
> $ cd repo1
> $ echo "hello from repo1" > test.txt
> $ hg init   # create a mercurial repository here
> $ hg st   # show status:  you should see one file unknown, "?"
> $ hg add    # add everything into version control
> $ hg ci  -m 'My first commit'
> $ hg tag INITIAL    #tag the current revision
> $ hg status   # you should see nothing modified or added;  everything
> is up to date
> $ ls -la    # see a .hg directory created by "hg init", and a .hgtags
> file created by your initial "hg tag"
> $ cat tag   # you can see the changeset associated with your tag
> $ # now, we'll clone this - just as if you were pulling from Google
> code:
> $ cd ..
> $ hg clone repo1 repo2   # new repository created
> $ cd repo2
> $ ls -la    # see your .hgtags file?
> $ echo "a second line" >> test.txt
> $ hg status   $ shows test.txt "M", modified
> $ hg ci -m 'my change to test.txt'
> $ cat .hgtags   # show your current TAGs
> $ hg tag INITIAL  # can't do this accidentally - a good thing!
>     abort: tag 'INIT' already exists (use -f to force)
> $ hg tag -f INITIAL    # re-tag
> $ cat .hgtag   # all your previous tagged versoins are there
>
> The moral:   Let mercurial keep track of the most current tag.
>
> If you now do "hg clone -r INITIAL repo2  mynewrepo"  and get the last
> revision tagged "INITIAL".
> The tags can be used in any mercurial command that accepts a revision
> (-r)  option.
>
> For example:  you can check what changed since the revision you have
> your client's site on, and decide how / if to proceed in upgrading
> your customer's application to the new web2py:
>
> $ hg diff -r R-1.75.1 -r R-1.75.2
>
> You can see how other, significant projects use tags for release and
> component tagging, for example:
>
> http://developer.symbian.org/wiki/index.php/Using_Mercurial_Tags
> andhttp://developer.symbian.org/wiki/index.php/Developer_Guidelines:_Fou...
>
> I hope this has been helpful.
>
> Regards,
> - Yarko
>
>
>
> > Massimo
>
> > On Apr 9, 7:52 pm, Yarko Tymciurak <resultsinsoftw...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 7:31 pm, Richard <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > alternatively you could check out specific versions from the mercurial
> > > > repository:http://code.google.com/p/web2py/source/checkout
>
> > > I just browsed through the comments, pages of commits to find 3
> > > comments that say 1.76.4.
>
> > > I assume these are the release (and the latest one is it).
>
> > > If I have a client w/ 1.65.1, I have a lot of paging / date guessing
> > > to go thru.
>
> > > That is why tagging release would be a good thing, and a service to
> > > the community:  I would be able to checkout by tag, and just get the
> > > right thing.
> > > If I wasn't sure of the right thing, I could check the hgtags file and
> > > see what the significant checkins (i.e. the tagged ones) were.
>
> > > I am surprised this even elicits discussion, alternatives, rather than
> > > simple agreement.
>
> > > - Yarko
>
> > > > On Apr 10, 4:25 am, Kenneth <kenneth.t.lundst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Is there a place where I could download older versions of web2py?
> > > > > Source version.
>
> > > > > I get still problems with the new version and can´t understand why. So
> > > > > I thought that by trying to upgrade one version a time I could maybe
> > > > > find out whats the problem.
>
> > > > > Kenneth


-- 
To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.

Reply via email to