From: Fabian K. <fk...@fa...> - 2011-11-25 15:03:29
|
Ian Silvester <ian...@fa...> wrote: > So I can use the simple read-only CVS access to grab the current source > and build a binary, but what's the procedure for providing it back to > the project for hosting? And what if I'd like to store some the > configuration files back in CVS? I suppose what I'm asking is, should I > have read-write CVS access, since I am aware that if I start with a > read-only working copy then I can't commit changes from that; I'd need > to create a replacement working copy if/when I have read/write access? Not necessarily, changing the repository information should suffice. Personally I would recommend that you do not work directly with a CVS checkout, though, but use git-cvsimport and do the development with git. That's what I've been doing myself for several years now and it has improved my work flow quite a bit. I currently have 35 branches in my local Privoxy repository and having to maintain them in CVS would waste a lot of time. If you were using git, you could also easily send patches to this list for review and wouldn't require CVS write permissions right away, which I currently wouldn't feel comfortable to grant, especially while the CVS commit mails are down (and I have no stable Internet connection). Importing from CVS into another distributed version control system (like Mercurial) should work, too, but I'm less familiar with it and probably wouldn't be much help in case of problems. We also have the following TODO list item for a while now: | 54) Move away from CVS to a more modern revision control system. | Find out if there are any objection against going with Git. | Using Git would also have the advantage that SF now pretents | to support it, so we could do it independently from 53). I would feel more comfortable if the OS X binary packages weren't uploaded to the SF project site right away, unless they are built by David based on your changes or at least tested and reviewed by people we already know. Fabian |