On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:55:07 +0200, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 8/10/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:15:14 +0200, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jonas Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> keeping our software repositories. The discussion has been up before,
>> which software to use for this. Afaic there's only one alternative
for
>> SCM: SVN. There is probably those that think different and please
speak
>> up
>> if so.
>
> (Afaic?)
Language evolution in the works. That's "AFAIK" slowly turning into an
actual word. Sociolinguistics is a fascinating topic. :)
Hehe, it's a thing I've started to do lately, switching k and c (both ways
around, very irregular :) ). It's not on purpose...
> Please, don't require SVN. It adds considerable size over CVS without
> solving the essential 'single point of failure' problem. I thought
the
It solves a number of annoyances in CVS, though, and would make
management of the recipe tree much easier. With Subversion support
already available in the new gobolinux.org server, I see the switch to
Subversion as almost inevitable.
> plan was to move to Git, which is young, but does solve that problem.
> Some of the other distributed SCMs are also good.
>
I don't see the problem with centralized SCM and I actually like that
approach.
Anyhow, if distributed SCM is wanted I can see Git and Darcs as
alternatives, but are we looking for a distributed SCM? Why is that
better
(besides of removing single point of failure, which is highly unlikely
to
happen on a good server).
I'd prefer a centralized SCM.
I thought so. :)
I do too. That and the above point about already having SVN in the server
made me assume that we inofficially had agreed on moving to SVN.
> Either way, generating tarballs and diffs are vital. At Savannah, one
> can do this from the web interface, and it's a function worth keeping.
>
I don't know what you mean about tarballs, but there's possibilities to
create diffs with SVN if one use ViewVC.
Look at
http://karlsson.sytes.net/viewsvn/gobolinux/tools/Compile/bin/Compile?r1=1&r2=2&diff_format=u
And of course, the use of Compile will not _require_ Subversion. The
recipe-store will contain recipe tarballs generated from the SVN tree.
This is how I see us using SVN for handling recipes: two trees in the
server; a live development tree and another one with released
revisions, from which the tarballs are made. One-off contributors (and
anyone who don't want to use SVN) will still be able to post recipes
to gobolinux-recipes like it happens now, but regular contributors
will be granted SVN access, leading the way to actually having "recipe
maintainers" in Gobo.
I thought that Compile would fetch the recipes from tags in the SVN tree.
For generating tarballs one could use a post-commit hook on tags or
similar.
>> For bugtracking I see two alternatives: Mantis or Trac. [...]
>
> RT would be the other big one IMO, but I've seen lots of groups
struggle
> to configure it.
>
Yes, that's why I didn't consider that. I've read up on bugtrackers and
the general idea is that one should use Mantis or Trac, therefore I went
for those.
I still want to give a try at your test installs (thanks for setting
them up!), but I've been barely having time to keep up with the
mailing these days (if all goes well, I'll turn over my dissertation
next week, wish me luck :) ).
Good luck!
btw, what are you writing about?
--
/Jonas
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
