[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Subversion
- From: Thomas Fjellstrom <tfjellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:47:16 -0600
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=TpB760xkWp1BDi+EGClYg2UaSwQeg0/cIJ2xxV4mvH5eGUXyS1ibSLJ6ZRy+M7i1UFE303v9Ee8KYglSqIz+GxvdaZIlxgu+xyiA5kVzMMses+wsuSjUGQjNxwRyWvFEK4jSpvTCw4ywnZdfbwApPJU4FxgVMk8d2+3rODaHykQ=
On November 1, 2005 11:31 am, Evert Glebbeek wrote:
> 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).
cvs2svn seems to be rather good. It was able to do a full conversion,
including the total history. Possibly metadata may have been lost or
modified, but the final svn tree was 100% complete as far as I could see.
I'll do it again, just to see if the script is any better :) Just have to
figure out how to get a full mirror of the CVS dir (not a checkout, but the
entire tree).
> Evert
>
--
Thomas Fjellstrom