RE: [Axiom-developer] GIT

[Bill Page]

On October 24, 2006 9:26 PM Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 
> Bill Page wrote:
> > On October 24, 2006 2:53 PM Jay Belanger wrote:
> > > I could check out from google, but it was an older version that
> > > had build problems.
> > 
> > ???
> > 
> > To the best of my ability to make this true, the contents of
> > the SVN repository on Google is identical the the SourceForge
> > repository. A batch job runs 'svk sync' from SourceForge to Google
> > every night. Please let me know if you suspect any differences
> > between these two repositories.
> > 
> 
> I fetched silver from SourceForge.

By "silver" do you mean SourceForge SVN /trunk?

> The last ChangeLog entry is from 2006-09-14 (so it is somewhat old)
> and it has build problems (fixed in build-improvenents): one has
> to remove by hand '.svn' subdirectories, full Latex installation
> is needed. I fetched silver about two weeks ago, but 'svn update'
> tell me that it is still up to date...
> 

So far as I know, no one has been updating SourceForge SVN /trunk
aka. "silver" lately. It was originally created by converting the
CVS version of patch-49 at SourceForge to SVN using the SourceForge
CVS to SVN migration tool. Gaby branched build-improvements from this
version of /trunk. After the migration of CVS to SVN the problem of
incorrectly marked binary files in the CVS was discovered and Ralf
Hemmecke committed some patches to correct the resulting corrupted
binary files in /trunk. Meanwhile Tim Daly has had serious problems
trying to commit changes to SourceForge SVN and so none of the
patch-50 changes are in /trunk (Or are they? I might be confused
about that.) Also, as far as I know, Tim has not committed any
new patches since patch-50 to the tla archive, right Tim?

In any case, my point is that the version of /trunk at Google
should be identical to the version of /trunk at SourceForge because
we have an automatic process in place to keep them in sync. In fact
the whole repository at Google, including the build-improvements
branch, should be identical to the SVN repository at SourceForge.
If this is not the case, please let me know.

Regards,
Bill Page.