Re: Should Quesa switch its version control system?

[Sean M. <se...@ro...>]

On 4/21/09 11:44 PM, James W. Walker said:

>Recently, in the thread "Buffer overrun in 64 bit build", some people  
>expressed interest in switching Quesa from CVS to some other version  
>control system.   I thought we should discuss it in a separate thread,  
>so that anyone who subscribes to the list but doesn't read every  
>message would have a fair chance to see it and offer an opinion.
>
>Besides CVS, SourceForge supports Subversion, Git, Mercurial, and  
>Bazaar.  All of these are newer, and at least in some ways better,  
>than CVS.

I agree they are all better than CVS.

>named TortoiseSVN and TortoiseHG.  On the Mac, I wrote a client for  
>Mercurial called MacMercurial.  I know there's a Subversion client  
>called svnX, but I don't know if that's the most popular.

The nicest svn client imho is Versions:
<http://versionsapp.com/>

I'd vote for svn because:
- it has the most clients
- its included in OS X by Apple
- its supported by Xcode
- there are very few Quesa developers meaning that merging and brancing
is not a big problem

>In the past, we were somewhat tied to the Mac CVS Pro client by its  
>special ability to handle Mac resource forks.  As far as I know, all  
>the necessary resource files in the Quesa tree have been converted  
>to .r text files or some other safe form.

I think there is still one.  Although I build Quesa as a static lib,
I've noticed that the framework does not build after a fresh checkout
because of some .rsrc file being size 0.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Sean McBride, B. Eng                 se...@ro...
Rogue Research                        www.rogue-research.com 
Mac Software Developer              Montréal, Québec, Canada