From: Matthew L. <mat...@gm...> - 2009-01-30 16:40:53
|
Ian, Could you provide another update on the status of moving vxl to subversion? I'm sorry to be pestering you about this again. I'm hoping to move vidl2 into core sometime soon (within a month or two). We talked before about waiting for the subversion switch before moving vidl2. It certainly would be nice to make the move while keeping versioning history and without any unsanctioned cvs hacks. However, in the interest of time, I'm considering making the move in cvs. I don't want to mess with the repository internals. I would probably just remove the code from it's current location and check in back in into core under the name vidl. This would mean removing the old vidl and checking it in as vidl1 (or some other name). The versioning information would be severed, but not totally lost. The old code would be available in the cvs attic. Thoughts? Matt |
From: Ian S. <ian...@st...> - 2009-01-30 16:52:55
|
Matthew Leotta wrote: > Ian, > > Could you provide another update on the status of moving vxl to subversion? > > I'm sorry to be pestering you about this again. I'm hoping to move > vidl2 into core sometime soon (within a month or two). We talked before > about waiting for the subversion switch before moving vidl2. It > certainly would be nice to make the move while keeping versioning > history and without any unsanctioned cvs hacks. However, in the > interest of time, I'm considering making the move in cvs. I don't want > to mess with the repository internals. I would probably just remove the > code from it's current location and check in back in into core under the > name vidl. This would mean removing the old vidl and checking it in as > vidl1 (or some other name). The versioning information would be > severed, but not totally lost. The old code would be available in the > cvs attic. That work is on hold at the moment, and I should apologise for not letting you know. I've got as far as writing some of the scripts to fix the file type, executable status, etc of every file. I might get a chance to finish it sometime around the 16th Feb, but I wouldn't bet on it, and I won't have any spare time the month or so after that. I'd suggest going ahead in CVS. I would suggest making the move in one single commit. cvs2svn uses time proximity to group all the individual file commits into a single changeset. regards, Ian. > > Thoughts? > > Matt |