[PD-dev] CVS to SVN ?

IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Fri Dec 21 19:15:08 CET 2007


Russell Bryant wrote:
> Winfried Ritsch wrote:
>> eg:
>>  externals/iem/comport/[trunk|branches|tags
>>  externals/iem/iemmatrix/[trunk|branches|tags
>> ...
>>  externals/zexy/[trunk|branches|tags
>>  externals/grill/[newlib]/[trunk|branches|tags
> 
> However, I think that this externals structure sounds like a nightmare.
> Personally, I would _much_ prefer the following simplified structure:
> 
> externals/[trunk|branches|tags]
> 
> The latter implies that there should be separate release handling for every
> external.  That sounds like it would be confusing and cumbersome to deal with.
> I think it makes more sense to package all of the "official" externals that are
> in svn in a single package.  That isn't to say that you couldn't as a developer
> check out a lower level directory from svn to work just on that section ...
> 

the separate externals reflect the separate developments by separate 
(groups of) people.
there is no "official" externals-package that are to be packaged 
together, even though pd-extended makes it look like this; but 
pd-extended is "yet another project" that is targetted at a big 
get-everything package: which is fine from an end-user point-of-view, 
but not necessarily from a developer's point-of-view.

my initial arguing was, that for packages (like pd-extended) one could 
create a bundle (e.g. svn:externals) that aggragates everything needed 
in another subfolder.
back then (search the archives for "svn migration" or similar in 
2007-09) the the answer to this was: "we should not beta-test 
experimental features of svn" (this is what i was alluding to in my 
first response to this thread)

the only other project i know where a lot of plugins by a large number 
of independent (that is: not interdependent) developers are organized in 
a single svn-repository is plone, where it is handled as wini has 
proposed it (e.g. externals/zexy/[trunk|branches|tags]/)

probably it would be interesting to find more case-studies than just the 
one.


one important thing (for me) is, that i want to reference the 
source-code of my library (e.g. "zexy") with a single link and  i want 
to include all the revisions of my library.

i still think that one should try to find a solution that fits most 
needs, and not only a few.
obviously there will be no solution to fit _all_ needs, but i think one 
should go for "most" (aka: "as much as possible")



m.fda
IOhannes




More information about the Pd-dev mailing list