On 2008-05-19 at 09:41:05 [+0200], Andreas Färber <andreas.faerber@xxxxxx> wrote: > Am 19.05.2008 um 00:53 schrieb Jonathon Freeman: > > > Ingo wrote: > > > >> That leads me to the next question: Is there a particular reason > >> why only > >> diffs are stored in the repository? I was originally hoping for a > >> repository that actually stores the sources. This would be handy to > >> work > >> with (i.e. store intermediate states) and would also facilitate group > >> porting efforts, which are pretty much inevitable for bigger > >> projects. > > > > I think this is a very excellent way of doing it. Not only is it > > pretty much > > necessary for group efforts, but it would make my own one-man > > efforts run a > > little smoother I think. > > Well, that's how MacPorts et al. do it, and it's easier to view the > changes for visitors that way. Nothing prevents us from additionally presenting a diff. Most repository browsers allow to show diffs on the fly anyway, so this really shouldn't be a problem. > BePorter needs patches in the end, but > it can't to my knowledge cope with patches against repositories yet. If the whole source is mirrored, it could just as well download the patched sources directly. > So that's two different things anyway. > It could be that there is an Assembla size limit. We wouldn't need to > care if we do move the SVN to a Haiku server. Yep, SVN or an alternative. :-) > However for any group porting efforts I would prefer not to do that in > SVN, it is possible with vendor branches but cumbersome. Git[1] and > the like are much more suited for the task of maintaining and merging > multiple distributed branches. (Speaking of which, I have submitted > some patches to Niels for their Git "hack" branch but haven't received > any feedback since then...) > It might make sense to set up repositories on a project basis though. > So, for porting SVN or CVS projects we might use Git (don't know > Mercurial[2]/Bazaar[3] too well, but Git seems easier to use on Haiku > for now with the others' dependency on Python); for a project using > Git obviously use Git, for a project using Bazaar use Bazaar etc. > Personally I have found Git to better handle merges than SVN/CVS but > it seems to lack an equivalent to the svn copy operation for files. If > we don't want to or can't host such repositories on our own server, > for Git repo.or.cz would be an option, for Bazaar launchpad.net. > > Anyway, +1 for using *some* distributed versioning system for group > efforts. From what I've heard about git, it sounds quite nice at least, but I haven't really used git or any of the other distributed version control systems yet. I think it's definitely worth to examine whether any of them could be used for a unified ports tree. Or if not, whether a server could be set up to host individual repositories. CU, Ingo -- BePorts homepage - http://tools.assembla.com/BePorts List archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/beports Administrative contact: brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx