Le 05/11/2011 01:28, Matthew Brush a écrit : > On 11-11-04 04:03 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote: >> Le 04/11/2011 23:28, Jiří Techet a écrit : >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 03:18, Matthew Brush<mbr...@codebrainz.ca> >>> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> All on one line: >>>> >>>> git filter-branch --msg-filter "sed -e >>>> 's|svnroot/geany-plugins/trunk/geany-plugins@|viewvc/geany-plugins\?view=revision\&revision=|'" >>>> >>>> HEAD >>>> >>>> Works fine at least looking at quite a few of the commits in gitk >>>> and has >>>> the advantage of linking to the better ViewVC code browser that >>>> SourceForge >>>> offers. >>>> >>> >>> OK, thanks. So is there any "official" conclusion which format should >>> be used? (I don't have any strong preference here.) >> >> I'd personally prefer to have a valid SVN URL rather than a valid HTTP >> link, but again, I don't mind much. >> > > Thanks for pointing out now *after* so much time and discussion that the > existing URL *was a valid SVN URL*. I'm glad I wasted my time :) > </sarcasm> > > @Jiri > I'd say it's your call, in light of this new information, I'd say leave > it as is and get it done as soon as you have time (assuming no one else > objects).
Sorry, I though you already knew it :/ However, Enrico agreed with setting up something appropriate on geany.org, so if you think it's worth it, maybe it'd be possible to have svn.geany.org/svnroot/geany-plugins@rev as a URL both valid for SVN and a viewvc. I totally agree that having the URL somewhere we control is better, I'm just not completely sure it's worth the effort (but maybe it's actually cheap, dunno). Regards, Colomban _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
