Ah, I got it. Thought I got the problem a couple of seconds after
sending, but I missed the aspect that it spreads.

BTW, does Monticello still include some kind of repository that's not
CVS?

Daniel

Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> 
> > > Monticello to SM very often because having a constantly changing source
> > > code output format wreaks havoc on a CVS repository (Julian and Ned will
> > > back me up on this ;).
> >
> > I completely believe you, but I have no inkling of what this has to do
> > with making SM releases.
> 
> I made that comment because Julian and Ned have been struggling recently
> with modifying the way DVS and Monticello treat line endings in the files
> they output, at the same time as using DVS and Monticello for other
> packages.  The problem is that if Person A working on a package updates
> to the new version of Monticello that changes the file format, Person B
> working on that package also has to update (or the diffs on each
> commit will be huge).  That leads to any other packages that Person B is
> working on being file out in the new format (since they now have the new
> Monticello in their image), which means that anyone working on *those*
> packages...
> 
> Effectively this means that any release that changes the output format is
> a forced upgrade.  I'd like to keep those forced upgrades to a minimum.
> 
> > Incidentally, I would like to see SM Monticello be more up to date and
> > get more exposure/usage...
> 
> I intend to post a new snapshot to SM in the next couple of days, once
> these line ending issues are resolved.  At that point I would like to
> really start pushing everyone currently using DVS to start using
> Monticello instead...