On Feb 25, 2006, at 8:39 AM, Thomas Grill wrote:
Hi all,
imo, it would be better to set up multiple repositories for the externals, abstractions, and the pd core ... maybe ever multiple repositories for the externals ...
Multiple repos for externals, abs and pd core makes sense, but not for each externals or branch of externals, IMO. I think externals should be a repo on its own.
i don't think there is a real reason for multiple repositories. I have been working with split repositories for quite a while because of missing path-wise access control in older svn versions, but this restriction is gone now. I find it inconvenient and unnecessary. SVN has far better capabilities of dealing with directories like cvs, so this would only complicate things. If SF provides the repo there will probably be only a single one available anyway.
First off, it would be great if you SVN users could explain the differences from CVS and how it will affect us. For example, I don't get the branch=folders stuff, that doesn't exist in CVS.
Everything that goes into Pd-extended should be in one repository. Not only does it make tagging easier, but also it makes release branches possible. For future Pd-extended releases, I plan on making a branch. With such a complicated program, its necessarily to be able to commit fixes that are specific to a release separately from HEAD. Then those fixes can be merged in or not depending on the fix. This can't be done with tagging.
All of the Pd-extended code doesn't have to be maintained in the Pd repository, but instead stable versions can be imported. This would work well with Gem, PDP, GridFlow, and Thomas' flext, etc. I think this would be a much better setup for externals/grill rather than the current automatic mirror.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"The arc of history bends towards justice." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.