CVS Commits

[stubbers]

Just interested, can any of the devs explain, not being buggy about the release date or anything, this is genuine interest. Why, although people have specified that they are doing work (both devs and people monitoring the CVS), nothing appears on the new Olympus CVS Statistics page, or on sourceforge.

Also have you stopped using sourceforge for the development of olympus, or do you now have 2 cvs archives. It's really confusing me

Please no one post in this topic about release dates, expected or otherwise...

[rivaldo]

Hmmm... speaking of which, acydburn has just made some commits on sourceforge...

[cyberCrank]

lots of them today...

[rivaldo]

[abridgement]
...on sourceforge.

Also have you stopped using sourceforge for the development of olympus, or do you now have 2 cvs archives. It's really confusing me

Please no one post in this topic about release dates, expected or otherwise...[/abridgement]

Not sure if I'm hijacking stubbers' post or just clarifying it, but I had my own question about sourceforge.

Is the CVS portion of sourceforge only tracking the commits made to the 2.0.x branch? I don't see how one repository of files could cover 2.0.x and Olympus/2.1.x/3.0.0 at the same time. So, with that, I'm assuming the commits made starting around 2/10 up until tonight are really intended for the 2.0.14 revision, and that any CVS of Olympus is confined to the area51.phpbb.com site, at least for now.

[Magnotta]

Well, in Acyd's announcement, he said that there was plenty of work done on the report system, for example, it just hasn't been committed yet, so I guess they have a bit more code for here on their home comps. that they just haven't bothered putting into the CVS version yet.

[Graham]

The CVS indeed stores both versions - the files are tagged as to which version (branch) they are for, so you can easily have multiple files with the same name.

And as you keep getting told, there is no big conspiracy to hide things from people, simply that changes are generally held back until vaguely complete (for example 50% of the changes in the last day would not have worked without all the others being in place as well).

CVS simply reflects what has been commited to the server, it is not always a reflection of what is being done

[shushu]

I got 11 commits last night. But how many of them are for 2.0.x?
Graham said that the files can be for both. How can I understand about these 11.

Were they for the future 2.0.14 or for Olympus?

[Virtuality]

They were all for Olympus. You can see if they are from 2.0.0 by looking for a line saying: Tag: phpBB-2_0_0

[shushu]

They were all for Olympus. You can see if they are from 2.0.0 by looking for a line saying: Tag: phpBB-2_0_0

I see. Thank you!

[cyberCrank]

The recent commits for 3.0 Olympus had 57 files related to the commits, 56 changed, and a new one functions_upload.php. The CVS snapshot and file-by-file and byte-by-byte comparisons (time stamp, size, CRC, and binary compares) show that 57 changed or new files exist.

My first test of this new CVS snapshot (with the new commits yesterday 3/21) showed it to be operational, but no extensive tests completed yet by me other than commenting/modifying the "//die('This software is unsupported..." line in the common.php file and uploading all to just see if it still runs given the number of changes and files submitted at once, as I see that it does. We are now going to see just what all has changed and check my lists of things this week...

Was very pleased to see the commits as it shows that a lot of work has indeed transpired in the last month (contrary to what some were thinking) and as Graham indicates there were or are a lot of related files that needed concurrent commits in order for 3.0 not to be completely "broken", which does not have to be the case for CVS commits in general, but seems to be the case this time (I would also guess it to be by design this time)...