hi all,
this looks quite promising ... i'd vote for switching from cvs to subversion as soon as possible ...
imo, it's much more comfortable to use than cvs...
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:06:54 -0800 (PST) From: "SourceForge.net Team" noreply@sourceforge.net To: TimBlechmann@gmx.de Subject: SOURCEFORGE.NET UPDATE - 2005-12-22 EDITION
As we enter a new calendar year, our focus remains on further improving the quality of our service. To that end, I am pleased to announce that SourceForge.net will offer Subversion in early January 2006, initially as a beta program available to approximately 50 projects. Then, if the Subversion beta period proceeds as smoothly as we expect, we will deploy Subversion site wide by March, 2006.
On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
hi all,
this looks quite promising ... i'd vote for switching from cvs to subversion as soon as possible ...
How about we let it get out of beta before we do the switch?
imo, it's much more comfortable to use than cvs...
It may be in the end, but a lot of us have never used svn, so that means taking the time out to learn it.
.hc
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:06:54 -0800 (PST) From: "SourceForge.net Team" noreply@sourceforge.net To: TimBlechmann@gmx.de Subject: SOURCEFORGE.NET UPDATE - 2005-12-22 EDITION
As we enter a new calendar year, our focus remains on further improving the quality of our service. To that end, I am pleased to announce that SourceForge.net will offer Subversion in early January 2006, initially as a beta program available to approximately 50 projects. Then, if the Subversion beta period proceeds as smoothly as we expect, we will deploy Subversion site wide by March, 2006.
-- mailto:TimBlechmann@gmx.de ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
latest mp3: kMW.mp3 http://mattin.org/mp3.html
latest cd: Goh Lee Kwang & Tim Blechmann: Drone http://www.geocities.com/gohleekwangtimblechmannduo/
After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say "I want to see the manager." William S. Burroughs
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism." - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
this looks quite promising ... i'd vote for switching from cvs to subversion as soon as possible ...
How about we let it get out of beta before we do the switch?
imo, it's much more comfortable to use than cvs...
It may be in the end, but a lot of us have never used svn, so that means taking the time out to learn it.
Agreed. I don't think that switching to a beta svn right away is going to solve much, and would just divert our attention from more pressing things (whichever they are).
Tim, am I missing something?
Oh, and would it mean that we would circumvent the CVS mirroring delay, or would SF add a SVN mirroring delay just so that everybody stays equal?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
this looks quite promising ... i'd vote for switching from cvs to subversion as soon as possible ...
How about we let it get out of beta before we do the switch?
imo, it's much more comfortable to use than cvs...
It may be in the end, but a lot of us have never used svn, so that means taking the time out to learn it.
Agreed. I don't think that switching to a beta svn right away is going to solve much, and would just divert our attention from more pressing things (whichever they are).
i wouldn't switch to the beta svn, but they're trying to get subversion running "stable" in march ... then i would switch ...
on the other hand i can understand hans, that learning subversion is very difficult which would delay pd's development by several monthes :-) it's a very difficult program to learn, especially when comparing it with something easy like cvs (just kidding) ...
having some experience with both, i don't want to start a flamewar, but i ask the people who are afraid of using a new software to google for cvs and subversion to figure out, what their arguments are and why exactly, they want to stick with subversion. i think no one sticked to win3.11/osx9/kernel-2.0, because he didn't to learn winxp/osx/kernel-2.6
t
Hallo, Tim Blechmann hat gesagt: // Tim Blechmann wrote:
i wouldn't switch to the beta svn, but they're trying to get subversion running "stable" in march ... then i would switch ...
on the other hand i can understand hans, that learning subversion is very difficult which would delay pd's development by several monthes :-) it's a very difficult program to learn, especially when comparing it with something easy like cvs (just kidding) ...
Just for anyone , who has never used Subversion: It's practically compatible to CVS and uses almost the same syntax, just replace "cvs" with "svn" in your usual commands:
$ svn update $ svn commit $ svn checkout $ svn add $ svn delete
It is well documented in the Subversion book: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Svn has several advantages over CVS, especially the handling of directory changes, copying or deleting of files (and dirs) so that versioning and branching is easier and cleaner etc.
It's definitely worth a look for every developer.
*However*: I think, a lot of the problems we still have with the repository are not solved by just switching the versioning software. Svn won't answer any of our open questions automatically, as in:
How to do a common build system? How to handle the growing number of developers, how to organize read/write permissions? How to deal with Sourceforge delays (which might even get worse with SVN, depending on how well Sourceforge manages the change)? [...]
Doing the CVS/SVN-switch might even introduce new problems, from seemingly trivial things like having to update the documentation on pure-data.org up to not so trivial stuff like importing the history of the old repository and solving problems, that I cannot even think of yet.
Switching over to svn definitely will be a difficult operation, which we must not hurry, although I, too, am in favour going for SVN at a certain time.
But as this operation will be uncomfortable, I think, a different question should be answered first: Should the repo. stay at Sourceforge at all? Because if not, than doing the CVS->SVN switch at SF would of course be superfluous. To answer that question, several facts need to be taken into account, like the fact, that besides the slow CVS, Sourceforge also has some advantages, for example the whole infrastructure with user and project manager handling, bug tracker etc.
All this is a very complex issue and we don't want to blindly jump on the Cool New Thing, that is Svn on Sourceforge, forgetting about the side effects and the future.
Ciao
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Tim Blechmann wrote:
this looks quite promising ... i'd vote for switching from cvs to subversion as soon as possible ... imo, it's much more comfortable to use than cvs...
Do you foresee any pratical advantages for it in the next months?
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada