[Gdal-dev] .cvsignore

[Tim Beckmann]

Martin,

CVS can be told to ignore files in a couple of different ways.  I suggest 
you review http://www.gnu.org/manual/cvs/html_mono/cvs.html#SEC148 and pay 
special attention to the bullets:
        - The per-user list in `.cvsignore' in your home directory is 
appended to the list, if it exists. 
        - Any entries in the environment variable $CVSIGNORE is appended 
to the list. 

Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Beckmann               tbeckman at usgs.gov
Software Project Lead
SAIC
EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD 57198
605-594-2521    Phone
605-594-6940    Fax





"Martin Daly" <Martin.Daly at cadcorp.com>
Sent by: gdal-dev-admin at remotesensing.org
04/10/2003 07:35 AM
Please respond to gdal-dev

 
        To:     <gdal-dev at remotesensing.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [Gdal-dev] .cvsignore


Frank et al,

As mentioned on the GDAL home page, we, Cadcorp, are working on Plug-ins
for our GIS, Cadcorp SIS using GDAL.

We use Visual SourceSafe rather than CVS for our version control;
primarily for the integration into the Visual Studio IDE.  Also, for our
own purposes, we are keeping a entire copy of GDAL in VSS.  We need this
so that we have reliable, consistent and easy ways to recreate and tag
our entire source tree at significant events like public releases.  We
need to know what our version of the GDAL code was like when we made a
release on a given day, not what the CVS version was.  We are only doing
infrequent GDAL updates, so the overhead in VSS is not too bad.

When a folder is managed by VSS, a file called vssver.scc is added by
VSS to the local holding.  Having this file gives me a lot of '?'
entries, one per folder, when I do a cvs update, making it hard to spot
any other inconsistencies or problems.

So, what I am wondering, is whether it would be possible to add
vssver.scc to .cvsignore in every folder.  Frank has kindly given me
write access to CVS, but, being a dumbo user, and not wanting to mess up
- or "do a Daniel" as I understand it is known - I'd be a bit wary of
diving in, even though the consequences of making a mistake would seem
to be small.  The benefit would be that if and when I actually need to
make edits, there should be less chance of "doing a Daniel."

So, are there strong objections to a) doing this, or b) me doing this?

Regards,
Martin Daly,
Technical Director,
Cadcorp Ltd
e: mailto:martin.daly at cadcorp.com
w: http://www.cadcorp.com
t: +44 (0) 20 7383 0014
f: +44 (0) 20 7388 6313
_______________________________________________
Gdal-dev mailing list
Gdal-dev at remotesensing.org
http://remotesensing.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev