Am 21.06.07, 10:59 +0200 schrieb Duncan Gibson: > Ian wrote: > > However, what I *actually* do is have a working tree and a "clean" > > copy that has never been built. Once my working tree is all synched > > up with my local svn, and the build runs OK, I use meld to synch the > > build tree with the "clean" tree, then tarball the clean tree. > > A bit off-topic, but how do you do manage two svn trees? > > I have often thought that it would be useful to have a two-stage source > control system where you can 'work locally' and do minor checkins as you > work and refactor and once you are happy with the overall result do a > major checkin that wipes the minors. It would save a lot of dated copies > of files. I never thought about using two systems in parallel.
Of course allways an interessting point for larger projects. I remember Robert L. Krawitz talking often about a sandbox. Seems a second tree he is working on to test things. Not shure whether it is maintained in a automatical fashion. Carl Worth seems to be happy with git from kernel.org after a extensive search for something useable to maintain several states of his development. This would be the one for me to invest, when I find the time for. kind regards Kai-Uwe Behrmann -- developing for colour management www.behrmann.name + www.oyranos.org + www.cinepaint.org _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
