Having two separated branches is easy in cvs. The tricky part is
merging some changes between them. And here even cvs is better than
having two totally separated systems.
Again, the point is not to abandon CVS, but use SVN for the 0.9.0 branch. That way CVS remains working, while SVN could be broken for a week or month.
Could work. But even if it is better, the users have to accept it.
Our bugtracker is rejected by lots of people even where it has
advantages. We can try to offer trac for new wishes, bugs and tasks
and see how well it gets accepted.
The system is a lot more user friendly. It should allow a lot more options during development (like having the bugs link to the problem file for instant review :P).
I don't care if our central repository is in place A, the bug tracker in
place B, the documentation in place C and the mailing list is in place D.
This is at worst a very minor inconvenience.
I disagree. Everything should be in one place. Its easier for everyone. Especially as I said above, the bug tracker etc should (in theory) automatically link to files and such when reports are posted.
We have other branches in cvs that could be contiuned someday.
Thats funny :P Those branches probably havn't been touched since I left, and If they have, probably not more than a few files :P Besides, as I said, export everything. Those brances can just be exported alonge with MAIN and then imported into SVN.
This will take awhile. I hope you don't get bored.
I have a bit of free time. I've already moved all development pages. And now just have to theme them. Shouldn't take too long.
I know that Bradley won't like this.
Why? I'm sure a reasonable programmer can see that at one point, you have to make a drastic change for the better. Finishing all features, fixing all bugs, releleasing Alpha 23, then restricting devel on CVS to mostly bug fixes is the best thing. That way he and other devs can move on, by rewriting large portions of the code. And as already said, if someone is working on something, its just as easy to commit it once done, or import once SVN is setup.
I think the snapshots are a good thing, but we wouldn't need them daily.
It is always night somewhere on earth.
True, so weekly then? Every Sunday night or something. End of week snapshot. Something which users can download, try, and report bugs to make it more stable when its time to release (rather than only sticking to releases, and when releasing Alpha 23, find there is heaps of bugs).
Well I commit to the repository by commandline.
I watch the bugtracker with a webbrowser.
I don't see why having both at same place helps me.
(By the way: I feel better with having a repository (including all history)
locally.)
And our system already is easy to browse.
We can put up additional links on our wiki, where it is not easy to browse.
But having it in one place will help. I know im repeating myself, but a good place for 0.9.0 is just what we need. And again, it doesn't nessarily need to be DevjaVu, but it was the best I could find, and I've used it before.
Bradley.
Congrats to him then ;)
No thanks. I constantly use it when fixing bugs. And when you loose
history you can't merge efficiently anymore. All but one branch in Devjavu
will defacto be lost.
Thats the kind oif thinking that keeps Globulation behind. You have to eventually make a choice, and if loosing some history is it, so be it. But again, the code wouldn't be imported until bugs have been fixed. If there is no need to revert since all new code in
0.9.0 will be broken once develoment starts, isn't having histroy from import more important (reverting all the new bug if something goes wrong?).
This argument is in my opinion very inferior.
With a system like git we wouldn't even a discussion with Bradley whether
we should have quick bugfix release next. Using different branches would
be natural. And merging would work well.
And you can't do that with SVN because........? Branches are easy, merging I've heard is really good, and tagging (releases) is as simple as running a line of code (or was it two? :S). The point is, SVN is just as good as Git, but both are better than CVS. So it doesn't matter where it moves to, as long as it provides something better, and allows development work to keep in a central place.
Why? Do you get money from devjavu? ;-)
Or why don't you want savannah to do half of the work for you for free and
better? They have trac support too.
No, no money :P *repeated* Savannah CVS and bug tracker will still be used, but for the old 0.8.x. The new 0.9.x will use SVN and TRAC? Do you see the difference? I'm not saying move everything (reports for
0.8.x and bug fixes will still be done on Savannah), just new code and new bug reports move to TRAC. This also eliminates the countless reports you might get of "CVS is broken" during development.
I really like that you want to work on glob2 infrastructure.
But even though switching to svn now on another server might seem to you
an advantage, it is an really big back drop.
I hear a lot of people talking about how good svn is. When I ask about
it's advantages to git, darcs, monotone, mercurial or bazaar I always
hear that they haven't tried them.
So instead of spending your time to port everything right now, better
have a look at those systems.
Why look at those other systems though? We arn't doing a debate of Source management tools, "this offers this" :P. We are talking about moving to anything other than CVS. If you can find a great, online 24/7, free source management tool, with the ability to have multi page documentation and bug tracker, then let me know. The other reason I chose svn too is because its so easy to migrace to. cvs update becomes svn update, and likewise for commit, and other commands.