Re: Repository change to SVN, Jan 28th

[Sheldon Gill]

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 that mostly goes on in private sandboxes. It 
may be beneficial to bring some of that work into the open?

> >   - how are branches to be named? What about sub-branches?
>
> I believe there were some suggestions before.  I had no objections but
> also no strong feelings.

Neither do I but I feel a set of guidelines would be a good thing.

> >   - how are developers going to communicate about branches and what's
> > going on in them?
>
> I would suggest the Wiki.

I'm all for that. Maybe with occasional announcements to the -dev list.

> >   - 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.  It's not like gnustep is seeing the kind of development activity
> like, say, GCC.  But maybe you have something specific in mind?

Main releases are obvious. I'm wondering about branch snapshots.

> >   - Are we going to import more vendor trees? (like ffcall, portaudio etc)
>
> I think we should keep anything not FSF assigned in a separate
> repository so we have clear boundaries from where we can blindly
> copy-and-paste code.  Other than that I think there should be a
> dedicated maintainer(s) for any external vendor tree who will keep them
> up to date.

I'm not sure we need a separate repository. Wouldn't a vendor directory tree 
would make the boundary equally clear?
Other than that, I'm in agreement with this.


Regards,
Sheldon