Re: Migrating from CVS

[Jeffrey L. <me...@ph...>]

Hi,

GitHub sounds good to me as well. I've got no objections to you doing the 
conversion yourself. But I also think that a few years ago someone else 
mentioned that they'd done a converison - probably Chris Young:

https://github.com/chris-y/arcem

At a brief look Chris's conversion is slightly better than your current 
one (https://github.com/ccawley2011/arcem) since he was able to include 
people's email addresses in the committer details.

Searching GitHub also reveals a couple of other conversions where they've 
gone for just the emulator sources (i.e. the makefile & readme are in the 
root of the repo). That's probably worth considering - having separate 
repos for the emulator and the website.

Cheers,

- Jeffrey

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023, Cameron Cawley wrote:

> Hi
> I agree that GitHub would be preferable - in addition to it being more widely used these days (so
> would potentially be more familiar to new contributors), it also has functionality like CI via GitHub
> Actions that would be useful for ArcEm.
> 
> If it's OK with the current project admins, I would be happy to attempt to do the conversion myself if
> a lack of time is the main issue.
> 
> Regards
> Cameron
> 
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 23:50, <ia...@je...> wrote:
>
>       I’d vote for Github.  Yes, it’s Microsoft, but ‘good things’ are there too.
>
> 
>
>       I.
>
> 
>
>       From: Cameron Cawley <cca...@gm...>
>       Sent: 30 October 2023 23:46
>       To: arc...@li...
>       Subject: Migrating from CVS
>
> 
>
>       Hi
>
> 
> 
> Several years ago, there was some discussion about migrating the ArcEm repository from CVS to
> Git or Subversion now that SourceForge has made all CVS repositories read only. Is there any
> further update on this?
>
> 
> 
> I’d be happy to help with this if necessary. I’ve been working on updating the Windows port as
> well as some new ones, so it would be nice to have everything submitted upstream.
>
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Cameron
>
> 
> 
> 
>