[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Tuesday 01 November 2005 02:26, Peter Wang wrote:
> I would really like to migrate to Subversion ASAP, after 4.2.0 is out.
Yes, I think this makes sense. Soon (as in, immediately) after 4.2.0 but
before merging the 4.3 changes back to mainline would be good.
One question though: will we keep the 4.2 branch in CVS, or move that to
subversion as well? This is relevant for a 4.2.1 release.
I propose to keep the 4.2 branch in CVS and do all the 4.3/5.0 stuff in SVN.
> The 4.3 source needs reorganising so that is it more obviously
> stratified and modular. Files need to be renamed and moved about but I
> don't want to lose the histories doing that. And hopefully SVN would be
> smarter at merging after renames than CVS (anyone know?)
It should, yes.
> I was going to suggest moving the code off SF.net, at least temporarily,
> but they just sent out a newsletter regarding their SVN plans.
> Unfortunately they have no specific timetable but we can ask to be in
> their beta trial. Do you think we should go for that?
Yes, I think that would be a good idea given certain boundary conditions. I
haven't read their newsletter yet, but it would be really unfortunate if
something were to go wrong with a commit and we would end up losing files
(say). Perhaps it'll be enough to keep local sandbox copies of files around.
About CVS -> SVN scripts, I hear that these are somewhat unreliable due to the
difference in how CVS and SVN work. I have no first hand experience with them
though, and I've only played with subversion very briefly (it's not installed
on our university network, but CVS is - so I decided to stick with that for
whatever software development I need to do here).
Evert