Update of task #2974 (project savane):
Status: None => Need Info
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #4:
> As I said in the original submission, I think the usage of Arch is fading
out.
> Most people nowadays use its successor, bazaar, because it is much simpler
to
But actually bazaar and Arch are compatible or almost the same thing. If I
remember well, it is bazaar that is installed at arch.gna.org
> use. Moreover, there are even better alternatives, which have learned from
the
> mistakes made by Arch, to provide even simpler and straight-forward
version
> control.
Arch is not even 4 years old software and it is already the time to restart
from scratch something else by learning from its mistakes? Well, it looks to
me that some people that were boldly pretentious in their time (I remember
some messages from people quite sure that their system would be the one used
worlwide in a few month, killing all others competitors... two years ago). It
also looks to me that there's a trend regarding SCMs (probably because there
is indeed a valid business model behind) that push plenty of people to start
their own homemade SCM - but I guess this trend will last.
> I'm afraid you got me wrong, then. I wasn't suggesting to add new fields
to
> the database. In fact, almost every field needed is already in the
database.
> The modular approach was just what I had in mind.
Ok, but such approach will not be an easy code change. Plenty of changes will
have to be made. Because the way arch and svn support was implemented was the
easy way: duplicating CVS fields.
> If I remember correctly, there have been quite a few support requests on
> Savannah to integrate the Arch version control system. It's just likely
that
> its successors are wanted, too.
Unless I'm mistaken, they still miss SVN. So I doubt they are so eager to add
one more SCM anytime soon.
> Savane. The only thing I'd like to change is to have a nicer support
interface
> in the project's pages for it. We don't need to add menus for each and
every
> SCM, in fact, I discourage us to do so. There should be just *one* menu
item,
> called "Sources", which would link to the appropriate version
> control system. Also, we wouldn't need to provide a web browsing
Ok, I like this idea of having only one page for all sources, whatever they
are. But we have to keep in mind what would happen for instance if a project
using SVN for its software source code but CVS for its homepage sources. It
would mean that info about SVN and infos about CVS should be printed.
That's doable but we have to think a bit on the way to do that cleanly.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=2974>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Savane-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/savane-dev
