On Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 03:21:08PM +0100, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 13:55 +0100, Georg Holzmann wrote:
> > > Of course we would loose the possibility that everyone can quickly
> > fix
> > > a bug everywhere, but then, I don't see this as such a big problem.
> > > There still would
Hallo,
Georg Holzmann hat gesagt: // Georg Holzmann wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> >Just to give some numbers: Currently we have 59 developers according
> >to http://sourceforge.net/projects/pure-data and I just saw, that some
> >like said Eric Lyon are still missing - at least I do know *him*
> >personally
Hallo!
Just to give some numbers: Currently we have 59 developers according
to http://sourceforge.net/projects/pure-data and I just saw, that some
like said Eric Lyon are still missing - at least I do know *him*
personally ;) - so we are already past 60!
Yes, but how many developers are active
Hallo,
Tim Blechmann hat gesagt: // Tim Blechmann wrote:
> it would have the advantage, that there is a certain amount of quality
> assurance, so no one messes with other people's code ...
> but i guess your observation is correct, currently the cvs is not used
> as version control system, but ra
Hallo,
Georg Holzmann hat gesagt: // Georg Holzmann wrote:
> I think this is only a good idea if there were already problems, that
> other developers broke things ... which I cannot really remember.
> If not, it will only prevent some people from developing, trying to
> improve other code, impro
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 13:55 +0100, Georg Holzmann wrote:
> > Of course we would loose the possibility that everyone can quickly
> fix
> > a bug everywhere, but then, I don't see this as such a big problem.
> > There still would be "trusted core developers" with access to almost
> > everything - or
Hallo!
However we already have a huge amount of members, who all have access
to the whole tree except Miller's branch, and I'd guess, that most of
the developers only need to have access to their own directory so that
their stuff can be checked out easily, can be included in pd-extended
etc.
Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>> hardware, backups and the like (even if "we" only means "me")
>> the bad thing is that sourceforge is really overloaded.
>> the good thing about the 2nd is, that the repository is under our full
>>
Hallo,
IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> hardware, backups and the like (even if "we" only means "me")
> the bad thing is that sourceforge is really overloaded.
> the good thing about the 2nd is, that the repository is under our full
> control. we can also use the pur
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 09:59:59AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> > i'd be more interested in moving us over to Git, so i can stop getting
> > these emails.
> why would "these" emails stop more if we were using Git than they would
> if we were using svn?
I could be wrong, but I think git is
carmen wrote:
>> I'd also still be interested in getting us over to Subversion, if
>> there is still a supportive group for this? I've maintained several
>> SVN repos now, and feel a bit more up to the task of organizing the
>> project.
there are definitely a lot of supporters for this.
i think t
11 matches
Mail list logo
