Curt, there's yet another point:
Curtis Olson wrote:
What Martin is referring to is a read only git mirror of the official
FlightGear CVS repository so it should cause no harm as long as we are
careful not to develop official dependencies that can only be supported on a
single operating
Martin Spott wrote:
The FlightGear project has been notoriously behind about getting
people's source code contributions into CVS - for years. We all know
the story, it's been the same for years already, no need to repeat it
here.
So, in order not to loose the respective contributions over
On 20 Aug 2008, at 21:14, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Migrating from CVS to SVN would already be a very good thing IMO
Just to add some data to this
- git works great on the Mac, or any Unix, but I believe it's never
going to fly (if you'll pardon the expression) on Windows, due to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
The FlightGear project has been notoriously behind about getting
people's source code contributions into CVS - for years. We all know
the story, it's been the same for years already, no need to repeat it
here.
So, in order not to loose
Curtis Olson wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand the scope and capabilities of git, but the way
things settle out in my mind is that it would make sense to support an
official GIT repository if (and only if) we decide to move the official
master code repository to GIT. I don't see what an
For what it's worth, I have started playing around with cvs2svn, but only
very recently. I've got nothing anyone can point at yet. Also by the way,
I will be out of town for a work project thursday - sunday. Also by the
way, my summer soccer team made the playoffs (we had to win our last 5
Pigeon wrote:
Ah, I did not notice it's only providing http access. The last time
I tried (maybe a year ago) http was much much slower than git's
protocol. I think git protocol access is definitely a ++ :)
Ok, try it out - I've adjusted the instructions accordingly at:
Timothy Moore wrote:
It would be especially great to base your merges from CVS on the git mirrors
at
pigeond.net, as several of us use that.
I know some others use the GIT repo at:
http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl
as a reference. Maybe now it's the right time to unify on
On 17 Aug 2008, at 17:22, Martin Spott wrote:
I know some others use the GIT repo at:
http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl
as a reference. Maybe now it's the right time to unify on one single
repository,
I'm using git quite happily, it's working well as a way of tracking my
I know some others use the GIT repo at:
[1]http://mapserver.flightgear.org/git/gitweb.pl
as a reference. Maybe now it's the right time to unify on one single
repository,
I'm using git quite happily, it's working well as a way of tracking my
different threads
Hi Pigeon, I hope you're doing well !
Pigeon wrote:
Having a central git repo would be great. Perhaps we could use the
one at mapserver.flightgear.org Martin mentioned? Maybe have a
git.flightgear.org subdomain or something.
Should be feasible, network bandwidth seemingly is not an issue
Hi Pigeon, I hope you're doing well !
I'm good! :)
Should be feasible, network bandwidth seemingly is not an issue and the
machine just got an upgrade to 32 GByte RAM. If people dislike GIT over
HTTP, then I'd check with our 'sponsor' wether I might set up an
anonymous GIT daemon. Yet,
Hello pigeon, John, and other git users. Everyone else can go about
their business, this is not a convert to git speech.
We have a problem. One of the big advantages to a distributed revision
control system, whether it be git or something else, is that we can
all work on our own branch(es) and
I would also like to see it work with both the plib and osg branches
of flightgear. It may come as a surprise to some, but git-cvsimport
does not get this right. Tailor does a fine job, however.
I used tailor for the same reason. It took me many many many many
tries to get tailor's config
301 - 314 of 314 matches
Mail list logo
