I've scheduled the change of repositories from CVS to SVN for next
Saturday, Jan 28. If you have any reasonably complete changes to
GNUstep, you should try to commit them to the CVS repository by Friday,
Jan 27. After that, the CVS repository at gnu.org will no longer be the
official source cod
Hello,
On Saturday, January 21, 2006, at 03:47 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote:
I am a bit puzzled by this fast transission over to SVN. Looks like
everybody wants to take place, or at least does not oppose it. Still we
should make sure that now that we doing it, it does not interrupt the
GNUstep develop
Fred Kiefer wrote:
I also think that with the new possibilities of SVN there come a few
more rules that we need to set up and follow. We expect that SVN will
make it easier to have multiple branches with actual development going
on. Now what will be the rules for merging this branches back into t
Dear Riccardo,
Riccardo wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2006, at 03:47 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote:
>
>> I am a bit puzzled by this fast transission over to SVN. Looks like
>> everybody wants to take place, or at least does not oppose it. Still we
>> should make sure that now that we doing it, it do
Sheldon Gill schrieb:
> Fred Kiefer wrote:
>
>> I also think that with the new possibilities of SVN there come a few
>> more rules that we need to set up and follow. We expect that SVN will
>> make it easier to have multiple branches with actual development going
>> on. Now what will be the rules
On Jan 22, 2006, at 16:42, Sheldon Gill wrote:
Actually, I think Fred has raised a good point here. We do, I think,
need some clarification about branches and merging back to trunk.
While I agree that the point is good in general and some rules need to
be set up, its not the most important poi
On 2006-01-22 04:42:31 -0700 Riccardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"instantaneous" switch is the best thing imho. A CVS mirror out of
the SVN
should be created at the same time so anonymous check-out can
continue "as
usual".
Anyone who knows how to do this or if it is possible, let me know.
David Ayers wrote:
Sheldon Gill schrieb:
Fred Kiefer wrote:
[snip]
- are we going to stick with the SVN recommended 'trunk', 'branch' and
'tag'
I would like to see this.
So would I. The thing I was thinking about is experimental or proof-of-concept
type work. At the moment it seems th
Sheldon Gill schrieb:
> David Ayers wrote:
>
>> You mean other than releases? Well since we have defined repository
>> states through revision numbers, I can't think of any necessity for more
>> tags. It's not like gnustep is seeing the kind of development activity
>> like, say, GCC. But maybe
David Ayers wrote:
Sheldon Gill schrieb:
David Ayers wrote:
You mean other than releases? Well since we have defined repository
states through revision numbers, I can't think of any necessity for more
tags. It's not like gnustep is seeing the kind of development activity
like, say, GCC. But
Am 22.01.2006 um 19:04 schrieb David Ayers:
- what goes into tag? When?
You mean other than releases? Well since we have defined repository
states through revision numbers, I can't think of any necessity for
more
tags.
Is there actually reason for tagging?
As tags and branches are te
11 matches
Mail list logo
