Comments on: Unixy system benchmarks https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2004/04/07/unixy-system-benchmarks/ A running description of activity related to DragonFly BSD. Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: Joe "Floid" Kanowitz https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2004/04/07/unixy-system-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-196 Sat, 10 Apr 2004 08:03:13 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=339#comment-196 Yes, though that’s probably the worst of both worlds as far as compactness is concerned. (CVS doesn’t quite let you roll around like that, so I suppose it doesn’t really matter, does it? Unless someone wants to hack on an automatic changelog facility, where the changelog conveniently resides in CVS and rolls over per-tagging — or one file just records the ‘last change’ touch and gets versioned? Probably not much fun for diminishing returns…)

]]> By: Claes "clacke" Wallin https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2004/04/07/unixy-system-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-195 Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:47:31 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=339#comment-195 You mean something like a named/bind serial number? YYMMDD01, YYMMDD02 etc.

]]> By: Joe "Floid" Kanowitz https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2004/04/07/unixy-system-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-194 Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:13:21 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=339#comment-194 Works for me, and/or if there’s a way to extract a CVS version off something that always increments with each ‘touch’ to the repository, that’d make for even better forensics.

]]> By: Claes Wallin https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2004/04/07/unixy-system-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-193 Thu, 08 Apr 2004 10:52:31 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=339#comment-193 FreeBSD-5-040407 sound reasonable, doesn’t it? (ISO date, YYMMDD) That’s the way most people note their CVS versions in e.g. Debian packages not based on released tarballs.

]]> By: Joe "Floid" Kanowitz https://www.dragonflydigest.com/2004/04/07/unixy-system-benchmarks/comment-page-1/#comment-192 Thu, 08 Apr 2004 05:41:30 +0000 http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/?p=339#comment-192 Mm, benchmarks!

I’m still reading, but it brings to mind a ‘usability’ annoyance in the BSD versioning system; thankfully, “April 7th, 2004” is specified at the bottom, but elsewise, where Linux gets defined odd-numbered releases, at least 3 out of 4 BSDs get “-CURRENT.” Not a big deal… until you’re searching around and land on a page of indeterminate date.

Nothing wrong with the development model, but anyone have ideas for a notation better or more compact than “-CURRENT as of DD/MM/YY,” which we all know we should write, but seldom do? (Of course, that’s date-format chauvinist, but as long as there’d be a “standard”…)

]]>