From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Thu 05 May 2005 - 18:31:15 BST
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 01:48:12PM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <herbert_at_13thfloor.at> writes:
> >> mmh... I am not very happy with the way how this was solved, because:
> > well, if you would show up now and then on the channel
> > we might have taken a different approach ... but I
> > guess although the various aspects might not be perfect,
> > IMHO the direction is generally good ...
> > at least I prefer this over a dozen different branches done by everybody
> > and his dog ...
> To avoid the dozen of different branches, I would like when the solved
> issues/bugs/patches/wishes will be filled at a central place instead of
> spreading them across IRC logs, maillists or Wikis. Personal mail is
> also problematic because some issues can not be handled immediately but
> require further investigations and might be forgotten over the time.
> > [... moving the CVS tree into an SVN repository ...]
> >> First two points can be perhaps solved by converting the CVS tree but I
> >> never did such a conversion. As already mentioned, I do not see the
> >> necessity of such a step.
> > well, this isn't intended to replace the savannah (i.e.
> > your) development branch, the idea is to have a breeding
> > ground for various changes, kind of idea pool, where
> > you can skim the useful stuff very easily ...
> I just think that SVN can not be used for that. E.g. I will pick some
> (but not all) of the changes in SVN and apply them (perhaps with small
> changes) to my util-vserver branch. But who will remerge my branch (with
> lots of conflicts) back into SVN?
be assured we will do that the one or other way ...
(do not worry about those things, I'm doing that for
some time now for my RPMs because the mainline (your)
version doesn't even compile on most of my systems)
so we probably end up trashing the 0.30.207 branch
once there is a 0.30.208 release from you, and refine
the 'missing' parts and upload/add it to that one
(or something more sophisticated utilizing 3-way merge
and a big crowbar)
> And the larger the changes in SVN will be, the larger and meaninglesser
> will be the 'svn diff <my branch>' output. I prefer small changesets
> which fulfill exactly one purpose.
that is the way we do it with the kernel (see FOR-*)
and this will probably be the way we do it with the
tools, feel free to adjust the actual feed back
process to your needs (nobody knows how to feed back
stuff right now)
> > if you have a better solution for that, please let us know, we are
> > easily convinced by good arguments ;)
> My mid-term plans are including a switch to GNU Arch when it is provided
> by Savannah. But the extremely positive mentioning of Monotone at lkml
> and its very good changeset support (this in GNU Arch is not good, but
> still better than this of SVN) will bring me to evaluate this SCM system
> before doing a final decision.
> For now, please use the Savannah infrastructure (bug- and patch-tracker)
> and try to use replyable addresses as possible. ;)
if you do not know who to reply to, send it to me
chances are good that the report was mine ...
> Vserver mailing list
Vserver mailing list