This sounds like a good idea to me.
Are there any reasons people would like to stick with CVS? (IDE integration perhaps?)
Bring on SVN.
.b.
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
hi all.
to lighten my growing frustration with CVS i would like to propose again to switch the Gem development from CVS to SVN.
the main reason for me right now is, that my personal online-time has been greatly reduced within the last weeks (and it is not clear whether it will grow again); with CVS i unfortunately need to be online for quite everything (even to query whether i have modified any files), this is better with SVN (at the expense of harddiskspace)
other boni:
- the main Pd-repository is now using subversion too
- all the fancy stuff about renaming files, fixing execution-bits,
deleting unused directories and so on
- standardized format for links to the current (or a certain)
development branch; the main-branch could be https://pd-gem.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pd-gem/Gem/trunk; what would it be on CVS? cvs://cvs.gem.iem.at/cvsroot/pd-gem/Gem ? (it's probably readable by humans, but not standardized and thus not readable by machines)
- some of the remaining GemLibs (e.g. FTGL) are now also hosted in
svn-repositories upstream, so we could more easily include them.
i would suggest to keep the repository at sourceforge (why bother with setting up our own)
plllleazzzze!!
fgam,sdr IOhannes
GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev