On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 07:56:42AM -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
> Generally, I'd be surprised to learn that Bzr/Launchpad were alone in
> supporting this, but they are the only ones I can vouch for. For
> instance, I'm almost positive that github also allows you to have
> multiple committers to
On Sep 15, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 9/15/09 13:56 , Gary Poster wrote:
>>
>
>> 2) Our current arrangement, as well as many others, can be
>> accomplished
>> with a DVCS. Launchpad + Bzr definitely support this. You would
>> have a
>> Launchpad team of committers, with ma
On 9/15/09 13:56 , Gary Poster wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>> In my experience distributed SCMs add bottlenecks to development that we
>> currently do not have in the Zope community: with both our shared svn
>> repository and distributed SCMs everyone can bran
On Sep 15, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> In my experience distributed SCMs add bottlenecks to development
> that we
> currently do not have in the Zope community: with both our shared svn
> repository and distributed SCMs everyone can branch everything, but
> with
> distributed
Andreas Jung wrote:
> Although it is possible to use hg/bzr/svn in parallel within a project
> and a buildout, I am completely against having a mixture of SVN+HG
> or SVN+BZR within a Plone project (where Zope stuff is coming from
> BZR or HG) and the Plone stuff from SVN..if we want/need to switch
On 9/15/09 10:33 , Reinout van Rees wrote:
> On 2009-09-11, Sebastien Douche wrote:
>>
>> Caution with the actual workflow, 2 differences between SVN and Hg :
>> - you cannot check out partial repository
>> - external does not exist
>
> Missing externals has been a pain point for me.
>
> There are
On 14.09.09 20:02, Gary Poster wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>
>
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>>> Christian Theune wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume opera
On 2009-09-11, Sebastien Douche wrote:
>
> Caution with the actual workflow, 2 differences between SVN and Hg :
> - you cannot check out partial repository
> - external does not exist
Missing externals has been a pain point for me.
There are however buildout recipes that can pull in "externals"
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Christian Theune wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
>>> sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume operations. That's why we
>>> started
>>> investigating alternatives whi
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 16:58, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi Martjin
> Hey,
>
> Christian Theune wrote:
> [snip]
>> Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
>> sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume operations. That's why we started
>> investigating alternatives which are bette
Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote:
> [snip]
>> Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
>> sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume operations. That's why we started
>> investigating alternatives which are better at branching and merging.
>
> Please keep up poste
Hey,
Christian Theune wrote:
[snip]
> Same here. We also ended up in many deadlock situations having to
> sacrifice chickens for SVN to resume operations. That's why we started
> investigating alternatives which are better at branching and merging.
Please keep up posted. We have a standing offer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/09/2009 07:12 PM, Benji York wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
>> On 09/09/2009 05:05 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> * better merge tracking
>>
>> For some interpretation of "better".
>
> My team tried pretty hard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
robert rottermann wrote:
> Martijn Faassen schrieb:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Christian Theune wrote:
>>> a long-standing issue with our mirror of svn.zope.org are the absolute
>>> URLs of externals: they require the repository to be available on a
>>> given
What about upgrading server to 1.6.
Subversion 1.6 has many new features.
>From http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.6_releasenotes.html :
* Improved handling of authentication data
* Repository root relative URLs
* Improvements to svn:externals
* Detection of tree conflicts
* Fi
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
> On 09/09/2009 05:05 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> * better merge tracking
>
> For some interpretation of "better".
My team tried pretty hard to use 1.5's merge tracking and we could never
get it to work well for us.
The only advantage we
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Christian Theune wrote:
> On 09/09/2009 05:05 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Okay, no objection to upgrading the server to 1.5 now.
>
> That has been done a good while ago already (I was probably ambiguous in
> my mail).
Damn, Jens is just doing too much of an awesom
On 09/09/2009 05:05 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2009, at 15:30 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, I perhaps misunderstood. I figured the resolving of relative
>>> externals would be a problem with a Subversion 1.4.x client.
>>
>> There's two different issues
On Sep 9, 2009, at 17:05 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> SVN 1.4 clients will work with SVN 1.5 repositories in general.
>> However,
>> that's not the real issue here. The issue is the new-style externals
>> definitions that allow you to use "relative" paths. Those relative
On 2009-9-9 14:54, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Martijn Faassen
> wrote:
>> Christian Theune wrote:
>>> However, this requires Subversion 1.5 which we are using on the server
>>> already, but I don't know whether we assume clients are 1.5 or higher.
>>
>> I certainly
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2009, at 15:30 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>
>> Ah, I perhaps misunderstood. I figured the resolving of relative
>> externals would be a problem with a Subversion 1.4.x client.
>
> There's two different issues being confused here.
>
> SVN 1.4 clients will work w
On Sep 9, 2009, at 15:59 , Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Jens Vagelpohl
> wrote:
>> SVN 1.4 clients will work with SVN 1.5 repositories in general.
>> However,
>> that's not the real issue here. The issue is the new-style externals
>> definitions that allow you to
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> SVN 1.4 clients will work with SVN 1.5 repositories in general. However,
> that's not the real issue here. The issue is the new-style externals
> definitions that allow you to use "relative" paths. Those relative paths
> will not work for SVN
On Sep 9, 2009, at 15:30 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
Ah, I perhaps misunderstood. I figured the resolving of relative
externals would be a problem with a Subversion 1.4.x client.
There's two different issues being confused here.
SVN 1.4 clients will work with SVN 1.5 repositories in general.
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Christian Theune wrote:
>>> However, this requires Subversion 1.5 which we are using on the server
>>> already, but I don't know whether we assume clients are 1.5 or higher.
>> I certainly still use a SVN 1.4.x cli
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> a long-standing issue with our mirror of svn.zope.org are the absolute
> URLs of externals: they require the repository to be available on a
> given URL.
>
> I propose to use relati
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Christian Theune wrote:
>> However, this requires Subversion 1.5 which we are using on the server
>> already, but I don't know whether we assume clients are 1.5 or higher.
>
> I certainly still use a SVN 1.4.x client, being on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
Martijn Faassen schrieb:
> Hi there,
>
> Christian Theune wrote:
>> a long-standing issue with our mirror of svn.zope.org are the absolute
>> URLs of externals: they require the repository to be available on a
>> given URL.
>>
>> I propose to use relative URLs for externals. I guess a complete upd
Hi there,
Christian Theune wrote:
> a long-standing issue with our mirror of svn.zope.org are the absolute
> URLs of externals: they require the repository to be available on a
> given URL.
>
> I propose to use relative URLs for externals. I guess a complete update
> isn't necessary, but I'd like
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Christian Theune wrote:
> As a side effect this will also make svn/svn+ssh work in a nicer way
> (IMHO) as the externals will follow the protocol of what you used for
> checkout.
I like that externals to svn:... are read-only, though I don't know
offhand whether we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
a long-standing issue with our mirror of svn.zope.org are the absolute
URLs of externals: they require the repository to be available on a
given URL.
I propose to use relative URLs for externals. I guess a complete update
isn't necessary, but I'd
31 matches
Mail list logo
