[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