Re: Repository change to SVN, Jan 28th

[Sheldon Gill]

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 maybe you have something specific in mind?
> >
> > Main releases are obvious. I'm wondering about branch snapshots.
>
> Not sure why you'd want a snapshot of a branch unless your releasing
> from branch (as in dedicated release branches with bugfix releases à la
> GCC).

I was thinking of two things here:
One is branch releases where a branch is somewhat experimental. This would help 
with testing and review.
The other is bugfix releases, ala GCC.

> > > >   - 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.
>
> IMO the copyright assignment boundary should be pretty clear especially
> if we have all projects at top level as was originally proposed, IIRC.
> I'm still in favor of a separate repository, but that's just my opinion.

Same or separate, as long as the boundary and use is clear. I wasn't thinking 
of having vendor items mixed in at the top level with the rest of GNUstep 
items. Rather a separate directory, so it's apparent they are in the Vendor 
tree. (Or whatever we choose to call it)


Regards,
Sheldon