[GEM-dev] subversion again...
B. Bogart
ben at ekran.org
Mon Jul 14 17:14:50 CEST 2008
This sounds like a good idea to me.
Are there any reasons people would like to stick with CVS? (IDE
integration perhaps?)
Bring on SVN.
.b.
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> hi all.
>
> to lighten my growing frustration with CVS i would like to propose again
> to switch the Gem development from CVS to SVN.
>
> the main reason for me right now is, that my personal online-time has
> been greatly reduced within the last weeks (and it is not clear whether
> it will grow again);
> with CVS i unfortunately need to be online for quite everything (even to
> query whether i have modified any files), this is better with SVN (at
> the expense of harddiskspace)
>
> other boni:
> - the main Pd-repository is now using subversion too
> - all the fancy stuff about renaming files, fixing execution-bits,
> deleting unused directories and so on
> - standardized format for links to the current (or a certain)
> development branch; the main-branch could be
> https://pd-gem.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/pd-gem/Gem/trunk; what would
> it be on CVS? cvs://cvs.gem.iem.at/cvsroot/pd-gem/Gem ? (it's probably
> readable by humans, but not standardized and thus not readable by machines)
> - some of the remaining GemLibs (e.g. FTGL) are now also hosted in
> svn-repositories upstream, so we could more easily include them.
>
>
> i would suggest to keep the repository at sourceforge (why bother with
> setting up our own)
>
>
> plllleazzzze!!
>
>
>
> fgam,sdr
> IOhannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> GEM-dev mailing list
> GEM-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
>
More information about the GEM-dev
mailing list