Re: Conclusion about CVS to Subversion et al. discussion
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 13:38 +0100, Christian Stimming wrote: > I would therefore propose that we decide on the transition to Subversion > *now*, and that this transition should happen in the next 1-2 weeks. +1. > Additionally, I would propose that we stop the discussion of the SCM issue > now > and reconsider this again at a later point in time (e.g., in six months from > now), when we can already see whether some of the source control issues are > already resolved by using SVN instead of CVS. 0. I don't see my opinion on the matter changing substantially in the near term, but I don't see any reason not to entertain the idea again in the future. ...jsled -- http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Conclusion about CVS to Subversion et al. discussion
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 13:38 +0100, Christian Stimming wrote: > @David Hampton: Would you suggest to do the gnome2-branch merging to HEAD > still in CVS, and make the transition to SVN after that? In CVS. > I would kindly ask whether the gnome2->HEAD merge could be done ASAP I was planning to do it this coming weekend, Nov 5th/6th. I'll see if I can get it done during the week. David ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Conclusion about CVS to Subversion et al. discussion
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:38:06PM +0100, Christian Stimming wrote: > I think it's about time to conclude this version control discussion for now, > make a decision based on the current consensus, postpone further discussion > into next year, and continue coding on the gnome2 port for now. Agreed. > > >From what we can see in the -devel and -patches discussion, everyone agrees > that we should make a transition from CVS to a more modern version control > system. Also, everyone would agree that SVN is in fact such a more modern > version control system. Josh's test setup for the gnucash repository on SVN > works already quite nice and gives a good impression of the benefits from SVN > (like, "svn diff" for the full commit of one person at one time, or in other > words: the full changeset can be viewed easily). > > There is no general agreement on whether a dedicated SCM like git would offer > enough additional benefit so that a transition of the gnucash repository to > such an SCM would be a good decision at this point in time. (For example, I > tend to agree that there is enough additional benefit in such a move, but as > I said, there is no general agreement.) s/dedicated/distributed/? > > I would therefore propose that we decide on the transition to Subversion > *now*, and that this transition should happen in the next 1-2 weeks. If we're moving to svn, let's do it *soon*. I think Josh said "in a couple weeks" at the *beginning* of this thread. > > @David Hampton: Would you suggest to do the gnome2-branch merging to HEAD > still in CVS, and make the transition to SVN after that? Or would you suggest > that we can make the SVN-transition with the current repository, so that the > gnome2-branch merging to HEAD will be done in SVN? If the former, then I > would kindly ask whether the gnome2->HEAD merge could be done ASAP; if the > latter, I would suggest that the transition to SVN should be done in the next > 1-2 weeks. At the risk of delay, I would recommend do the merge before the move. > > Additionally, I would propose that we stop the discussion of the SCM issue > now > and reconsider this again at a later point in time (e.g., in six months from > now), when we can already see whether some of the source control issues are > already resolved by using SVN instead of CVS. Good proposal. -chris ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Conclusion about CVS to Subversion et al. discussion
I think it's about time to conclude this version control discussion for now, make a decision based on the current consensus, postpone further discussion into next year, and continue coding on the gnome2 port for now. >From what we can see in the -devel and -patches discussion, everyone agrees that we should make a transition from CVS to a more modern version control system. Also, everyone would agree that SVN is in fact such a more modern version control system. Josh's test setup for the gnucash repository on SVN works already quite nice and gives a good impression of the benefits from SVN (like, "svn diff" for the full commit of one person at one time, or in other words: the full changeset can be viewed easily). There is no general agreement on whether a dedicated SCM like git would offer enough additional benefit so that a transition of the gnucash repository to such an SCM would be a good decision at this point in time. (For example, I tend to agree that there is enough additional benefit in such a move, but as I said, there is no general agreement.) I would therefore propose that we decide on the transition to Subversion *now*, and that this transition should happen in the next 1-2 weeks. @David Hampton: Would you suggest to do the gnome2-branch merging to HEAD still in CVS, and make the transition to SVN after that? Or would you suggest that we can make the SVN-transition with the current repository, so that the gnome2-branch merging to HEAD will be done in SVN? If the former, then I would kindly ask whether the gnome2->HEAD merge could be done ASAP; if the latter, I would suggest that the transition to SVN should be done in the next 1-2 weeks. Additionally, I would propose that we stop the discussion of the SCM issue now and reconsider this again at a later point in time (e.g., in six months from now), when we can already see whether some of the source control issues are already resolved by using SVN instead of CVS. Regards, Christian ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
