On Feb 7, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Since DD is a fork, I think it should not be a branch of Pd in the repository. It can be in the same repository, I don't care either way about that.
Why are you becoming suddenly unconcerned with the commit-history and pd-cvs mailing-list? This is not what you have told me last week.
When looking at a file, say pd/src/s_file.c, then there are be dd- specific commits in the history, that's what I mean. As for the pd- cvs mailing list, I can live with seeing the dd commit messages there. ;)
There's not much of a difference between a branch and a non-branch in SVN, so I don't mind so much about that, as long as SVN really handles the renaming perfectly.
I expected they would have wanted their own repository so that they can control it themselves without having to deal with the Pd overhead (adding devs, commit policy, etc). But I guess not.
adding devs could be a reason in the future, if we have more people who _regularly_ need to commit, but aren't accepted as devs in the pure-data sf-project. For once-a-month would-be-committers, I don't mind doing it for them, frankly.
I don't know what you mean about the "commit policy". What is that?
Many repositories have scripted commit policies that check all sorts of things before allowing a commit, things like it needs to compile, it needs not use deprecate libraries, etc. etc.
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers