[PD-dev] time for svn?
hans at eds.org
Sun Feb 26 01:30:27 CET 2006
On Feb 25, 2006, at 8:39 AM, Thomas Grill wrote:
> Hi all,
>>> imo, it would be better to set up multiple repositories for the
>>> externals, abstractions, and the pd core ... maybe ever multiple
>>> repositories for the externals ...
>> Multiple repos for externals, abs and pd core makes sense, but not
>> for each externals or branch of externals, IMO. I think externals
>> should be a repo on its own.
> i don't think there is a real reason for multiple repositories.
> I have been working with split repositories for quite a while
> because of missing path-wise access control in older svn versions,
> but this restriction is gone now. I find it inconvenient and
> SVN has far better capabilities of dealing with directories like
> cvs, so this would only complicate things.
> If SF provides the repo there will probably be only a single one
> available anyway.
First off, it would be great if you SVN users could explain the
differences from CVS and how it will affect us. For example, I don't
get the branch=folders stuff, that doesn't exist in CVS.
Everything that goes into Pd-extended should be in one repository.
Not only does it make tagging easier, but also it makes release
branches possible. For future Pd-extended releases, I plan on making
a branch. With such a complicated program, its necessarily to be
able to commit fixes that are specific to a release separately from
HEAD. Then those fixes can be merged in or not depending on the
fix. This can't be done with tagging.
All of the Pd-extended code doesn't have to be maintained in the Pd
repository, but instead stable versions can be imported. This would
work well with Gem, PDP, GridFlow, and Thomas' flext, etc. I think
this would be a much better setup for externals/grill rather than the
current automatic mirror.
"The arc of history bends towards justice."
- Dr. Martin Luther King,
More information about the Pd-dev