On Sep 17, 2007, at 4:50 PM, David Plans Casal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2007, at 05:23, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
One last comment on this topic: since SVN is supposed to handle moves so well, why don't we defer the very contensious issues of reogranizing the directories and tags/branches until after we have the SVN repository working nicely? It seems that it is too much to deal with all at once via email.
because it is perfectly possible to have both cvs and svn on SF in the same project, this works and means we can apply lazy consensus to IOhannes simply tidying up after posting something like 'I'm about to can the following', which is great, so I agree. Plus, some of us feel much more confident working in SVN so we'd be able to help more at the nasty build-system end (here's hoping).
I think that's a lot to risk on hope. I think people are enjoying regular, usable, reasonably complete builds. I'd like to keep that going, so I think we need to have someone committed to fixing the build system breakage before we break it. That's not going to be me in the near future, but of course, I'd help out if someone leads the charge.
Also, that makes me think that there should be a (IRC?) meeting about the move to SVN first, then later about reorganizing
throw some dates around?
Move to SVN now, work that out, then start talking reorg. But IOhannes is the lead on the SVN move, so that's just my two cents.
.hc
David
.hc
fmasdr. IOhannes
--
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.