a Cog branch
Locked
123
123
 
|
Hi All, I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in the Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or credentials? What's the process to add me to those allowed to write to the repository? Or is there simply a secret username and password that's told to a few? If the later can some kind soul let me have the password. I faithfully promise not to abuse the privilege.
best Eliot
|
|
|
Ignore this. David and I hit send at the same time. Its being taken case of. Apologies.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi All, |
|
|
Hi Eliot, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > Ignore this. David and I hit send at the same time. Its being taken > case of. > > Apologies. This is nothing to ignore, or to apologize for. This is good news! I'm a very small contributor in the VM arena, but indeed you are a core developer here. Thanks, Juan Vuletich > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Eliot Miranda > <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general > circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in the > Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or credentials? > What's the process to add me to those allowed to write to the > repository? Or is there simply a secret username and password > that's told to a few? If the later can some kind soul let me have > the password. I faithfully promise not to abuse the privilege. > > best > Eliot > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
Eliot, how about using github for it? It would be much convenient for use, since it supports branching and no need for someone to be added to 'official' list of contributors in order to push own patches. Anyone could make own fork at any time, and at any time, a core developer could backport the changes into official repository. I think github model is very good for community development. Then i, for instance, could push my own changes into my branch, and it will be easy to track, exchange and port the code between forks and official repository. On 23 June 2010 21:48, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi All, > I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in the Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or credentials? What's the process to add me to those allowed to write to the repository? Or is there simply a secret username and password that's told to a few? If the later can some kind soul let me have the password. I faithfully promise not to abuse the privilege. > best > Eliot > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think that's great for the whole Squeak VM not just Cog. I'm not doing this now because I think Cog should live with the rest of the Squeak VM. Let's start a separate discussion on whether we should move http://squeakvm.org/svn/squeak to github, or at least to git with a home on machines we control..
It would be much convenient for use, since it supports branching and Agreed. Git and/or Mercurial is much better than svn. best Eliot
|
|
|
+1 Mercurial, -1 Git. Cheers, Josh On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
|
|
|
Does Mercurial provides an infrastructure like github? I mean, if it doesn't , then it is nothing better than svn (the fact that i could have a full copy of repository locally doesn't much matters). I really don't care what version control system used as a backend, i care about infrastructure around it. On a github its ultimately easy to get started and make own fork(s) of existing projects, and moreover, all such things are tracked, not just sources. So, users could see how much forks there, and could navigate through them etc etc. The fancy & clever diff/merge etc things is cool, but used seldom, because 99% of times you just doing edit/commit. On 25 June 2010 02:46, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: > > +1 Mercurial, -1 Git. > Cheers, > Josh > > > On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Eliot, how about using github for it? > > I think that's great for the whole Squeak VM not just Cog. I'm not doing this now because I think Cog should live with the rest of the Squeak VM. Let's start a separate discussion on whether we should move http://squeakvm.org/svn/squeak to github, or at least to git with a home on machines we control.. > >> >> It would be much convenient for use, since it supports branching and >> no need for someone to be added to 'official' list of contributors in >> order to push own >> patches. >> Anyone could make own fork at any time, and at any time, a core >> developer could backport the changes >> into official repository. >> I think github model is very good for community development. Then i, >> for instance, could >> push my own changes into my branch, and it will be easy to track, >> exchange and port the code between >> forks and official repository. > > Agreed. Git and/or Mercurial is much better than svn. > best > Eliot >> >> On 23 June 2010 21:48, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi All, >> > I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in the Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or credentials? What's the process to add me to those allowed to write to the repository? Or is there simply a secret username and password that's told to a few? If the later can some kind soul let me have the password. I faithfully promise not to abuse the privilege. >> > best >> > Eliot >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > Does Mercurial provides an infrastructure like github? Google Code hosting supports Mercurial. I'm not sure specifically what infrastructure you're talking about; does Google Code meet your needs? > I mean, if it doesn't , then it is nothing better than svn (the fact > that i could have a full copy > of repository locally doesn't much matters). > I really don't care what version control system used as a backend, i > care about infrastructure around it. > On a github its ultimately easy to get started and make own fork(s) of > existing projects, Not sure how well Google Code meets that need. Anyone? Cheers, Josh > and moreover, all such things are tracked, not just sources. > So, users could see how much forks there, and could navigate through > them etc etc. > The fancy & clever diff/merge etc things is cool, but used seldom, > because 99% of times you just doing > edit/commit. > > On 25 June 2010 02:46, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> +1 Mercurial, -1 Git. >> Cheers, >> Josh >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Eliot, how about using github for it? >> >> I think that's great for the whole Squeak VM not just Cog. I'm not doing this now because I think Cog should live with the rest of the Squeak VM. Let's start a separate discussion on whether we should move http://squeakvm.org/svn/squeak to github, or at least to git with a home on machines we control.. >> >>> >>> It would be much convenient for use, since it supports branching and >>> no need for someone to be added to 'official' list of contributors in >>> order to push own >>> patches. >>> Anyone could make own fork at any time, and at any time, a core >>> developer could backport the changes >>> into official repository. >>> I think github model is very good for community development. Then i, >>> for instance, could >>> push my own changes into my branch, and it will be easy to track, >>> exchange and port the code between >>> forks and official repository. >> >> Agreed. Git and/or Mercurial is much better than svn. >> best >> Eliot >>> >>> On 23 June 2010 21:48, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in the Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or credentials? What's the process to add me to those allowed to write to the repository? Or is there simply a secret username and password that's told to a few? If the later can some kind soul let me have the password. I faithfully promise not to abuse the privilege. >>>> best >>>> Eliot >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
Bazaar is better than mercurial, one of the launchpad team is a squeaker. Launchpad is better than github. Keith On 25 Jun 2010, at 02:26, Josh Gargus wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> >> Does Mercurial provides an infrastructure like github? > > Google Code hosting supports Mercurial. I'm not sure specifically > what infrastructure you're talking about; does Google Code meet your > needs? > > >> I mean, if it doesn't , then it is nothing better than svn (the fact >> that i could have a full copy >> of repository locally doesn't much matters). >> I really don't care what version control system used as a backend, i >> care about infrastructure around it. >> On a github its ultimately easy to get started and make own fork(s) >> of >> existing projects, > > Not sure how well Google Code meets that need. Anyone? > > Cheers, > Josh > > > >> and moreover, all such things are tracked, not just sources. >> So, users could see how much forks there, and could navigate through >> them etc etc. >> The fancy & clever diff/merge etc things is cool, but used seldom, >> because 99% of times you just doing >> edit/commit. >> >> On 25 June 2010 02:46, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 Mercurial, -1 Git. >>> Cheers, >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Igor Stasenko >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Eliot, how about using github for it? >>> >>> I think that's great for the whole Squeak VM not just Cog. I'm >>> not doing this now because I think Cog should live with the rest >>> of the Squeak VM. Let's start a separate discussion on whether we >>> should move http://squeakvm.org/svn/squeak to github, or at least >>> to git with a home on machines we control.. >>> >>>> >>>> It would be much convenient for use, since it supports branching >>>> and >>>> no need for someone to be added to 'official' list of >>>> contributors in >>>> order to push own >>>> patches. >>>> Anyone could make own fork at any time, and at any time, a core >>>> developer could backport the changes >>>> into official repository. >>>> I think github model is very good for community development. Then >>>> i, >>>> for instance, could >>>> push my own changes into my branch, and it will be easy to track, >>>> exchange and port the code between >>>> forks and official repository. >>> >>> Agreed. Git and/or Mercurial is much better than svn. >>> best >>> Eliot >>>> >>>> On 23 June 2010 21:48, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general >>>>> circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in >>>>> the Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or >>>>> credentials? What's the process to add me to those allowed to >>>>> write to the repository? Or is there simply a secret username >>>>> and password that's told to a few? If the later can some kind >>>>> soul let me have the password. I faithfully promise not to >>>>> abuse the privilege. >>>>> best >>>>> Eliot >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Josh Gargus
On 25 June 2010 04:26, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> >> Does Mercurial provides an infrastructure like github? > > Google Code hosting supports Mercurial. I'm not sure specifically what infrastructure you're talking about; does Google Code meet your needs? > I advise to take a glance at github. A google code is a project-centric thingy. Its all about creating a public place for single project i.e. wiki, issue tracker etc. Github is user(developer) centric. One user could create a project, then others may create forks or subforks of his project(s) and continue development by own, without the need of permission or any administering of original project owner, and github tracking all connections and history between forks. > >> I mean, if it doesn't , then it is nothing better than svn (the fact >> that i could have a full copy >> of repository locally doesn't much matters). >> I really don't care what version control system used as a backend, i >> care about infrastructure around it. >> On a github its ultimately easy to get started and make own fork(s) of >> existing projects, > > Not sure how well Google Code meets that need. Anyone? > > Cheers, > Josh > > > >> and moreover, all such things are tracked, not just sources. >> So, users could see how much forks there, and could navigate through >> them etc etc. >> The fancy & clever diff/merge etc things is cool, but used seldom, >> because 99% of times you just doing >> edit/commit. >> >> On 25 June 2010 02:46, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 Mercurial, -1 Git. >>> Cheers, >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Eliot, how about using github for it? >>> >>> I think that's great for the whole Squeak VM not just Cog. I'm not doing this now because I think Cog should live with the rest of the Squeak VM. Let's start a separate discussion on whether we should move http://squeakvm.org/svn/squeak to github, or at least to git with a home on machines we control.. >>> >>>> >>>> It would be much convenient for use, since it supports branching and >>>> no need for someone to be added to 'official' list of contributors in >>>> order to push own >>>> patches. >>>> Anyone could make own fork at any time, and at any time, a core >>>> developer could backport the changes >>>> into official repository. >>>> I think github model is very good for community development. Then i, >>>> for instance, could >>>> push my own changes into my branch, and it will be easy to track, >>>> exchange and port the code between >>>> forks and official repository. >>> >>> Agreed. Git and/or Mercurial is much better than svn. >>> best >>> Eliot >>>> >>>> On 23 June 2010 21:48, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in the Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or credentials? What's the process to add me to those allowed to write to the repository? Or is there simply a secret username and password that's told to a few? If the later can some kind soul let me have the password. I faithfully promise not to abuse the privilege. >>>>> best >>>>> Eliot >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
|
|
On Jun 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > On 25 June 2010 04:26, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >>> >>> Does Mercurial provides an infrastructure like github? >> >> Google Code hosting supports Mercurial. I'm not sure specifically what infrastructure you're talking about; does Google Code meet your needs? >> > > I advise to take a glance at github. > A google code is a project-centric thingy. Its all about creating a > public place for single project i.e. wiki, issue tracker etc. > Github is user(developer) centric. > One user could create a project, then others may create forks or > subforks of his project(s) and continue > development by own, without the need of permission or any > administering of original project owner, and github tracking all > connections and history between forks. > OK, will do. I don't like git too much, but github may make it worthwhile. Thanks, Josh |
|
|
In reply to this post by Josh Gargus
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 3:26 AM, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's http://bitbucket.org/ for Mercurial.
The free account may not be enough, see http://bitbucket.org/plans Cheers, Laurent Laffont http://pharocasts.blogspot.com/ http://magaloma.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:03 AM, keith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have never used bazaar, but Launchpad looks great. https://launchpad.net/+tour/index Ubuntu integration + translation + API are worthwhile Laurent
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
On 6/24/2010 7:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > One user could create a project, then others may create forks or > subforks of his project(s) How exactly is this a good thing? I don't want 200 forked Squeak VM versions; I want one canonical source that people can build from. Cheers, - Andreas |
|
|
In reply to this post by laurent laffont
Arguments about which DVCS is better should be avoided, because they all provide more or less the same features. About the hosting platforms: The free plan in BitBucket seems too limited (1Gb may not be enough for the VM and all of its history). GitHub is really great for its support of forks, but the additional services like issue tracking are not that great. Launchpad has a good bug tracking system, and I like the code review workflow directly integrated in the platform. <ignore the troll>I like Git because I'm used to it, I like Hg because I can tweak it, I don't like bzr because I don't know it</ignore the troll> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:05 AM, laurent laffont <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:03 AM, keith <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Bazaar is better than mercurial, one of the launchpad team is a squeaker. >> >> Launchpad is better than github. > > I have never used bazaar, but Launchpad looks great. https://launchpad.net/+tour/index > Ubuntu integration + translation + API are worthwhile > Laurent > >> >> Keith >> >> On 25 Jun 2010, at 02:26, Josh Gargus wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:17 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Does Mercurial provides an infrastructure like github? >>> >>> Google Code hosting supports Mercurial. I'm not sure specifically what infrastructure you're talking about; does Google Code meet your needs? >>> >>> >>>> I mean, if it doesn't , then it is nothing better than svn (the fact >>>> that i could have a full copy >>>> of repository locally doesn't much matters). >>>> I really don't care what version control system used as a backend, i >>>> care about infrastructure around it. >>>> On a github its ultimately easy to get started and make own fork(s) of >>>> existing projects, >>> >>> Not sure how well Google Code meets that need. Anyone? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>>> and moreover, all such things are tracked, not just sources. >>>> So, users could see how much forks there, and could navigate through >>>> them etc etc. >>>> The fancy & clever diff/merge etc things is cool, but used seldom, >>>> because 99% of times you just doing >>>> edit/commit. >>>> >>>> On 25 June 2010 02:46, Josh Gargus <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 Mercurial, -1 Git. >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Josh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 24, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Eliot, how about using github for it? >>>>> >>>>> I think that's great for the whole Squeak VM not just Cog. I'm not doing this now because I think Cog should live with the rest of the Squeak VM. Let's start a separate discussion on whether we should move http://squeakvm.org/svn/squeak to github, or at least to git with a home on machines we control.. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be much convenient for use, since it supports branching and >>>>>> no need for someone to be added to 'official' list of contributors in >>>>>> order to push own >>>>>> patches. >>>>>> Anyone could make own fork at any time, and at any time, a core >>>>>> developer could backport the changes >>>>>> into official repository. >>>>>> I think github model is very good for community development. Then i, >>>>>> for instance, could >>>>>> push my own changes into my branch, and it will be easy to track, >>>>>> exchange and port the code between >>>>>> forks and official repository. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. Git and/or Mercurial is much better than svn. >>>>> best >>>>> Eliot >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23 June 2010 21:48, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> I need to be able to push fixes to Cog into general circulation and for this I'd like to maintain a Cog branch in the Subversion tree. But how do I get permission and/or credentials? What's the process to add me to those allowed to write to the repository? Or is there simply a secret username and password that's told to a few? If the later can some kind soul let me have the password. I faithfully promise not to abuse the privilege. >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> Eliot >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >>> >> > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 6/24/2010 7:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> One user could create a project, then others may create forks or >> subforks of his project(s) > > How exactly is this a good thing? I don't want 200 forked Squeak VM > versions; I want one canonical source that people can build from. > Forks can be really useful for people who have to maintain a set of patches that may not be accepted in the repository (applications requiring a specific VM configuration, servers, etc). With the branching workflows in DVCS, you can still get updates from the main repository, develop new features in parallel, and maintain your patches without impacting the rest of the developers. With SVN, if you don't have commit access, you only have two possibilities: store a lot of patches, and reapply them by hand at each update, or use a dirty trick like git-svn. I'm using git-svn right now: it is great to be able to commit locally, but it's a bit heavy to use. |
|
|
On 6/25/2010 1:05 AM, Geoffroy Couprie wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> On 6/24/2010 7:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>> >>> One user could create a project, then others may create forks or >>> subforks of his project(s) >> >> How exactly is this a good thing? I don't want 200 forked Squeak VM >> versions; I want one canonical source that people can build from. >> > > Forks can be really useful for people who have to maintain a set of > patches that may not be accepted in the repository (applications > requiring a specific VM configuration, servers, etc). Do we have this problem? What patches do you or anyone else have that can or should not be integrated in the main source? Cheers, - Andreas > With the > branching workflows in DVCS, you can still get updates from the main > repository, develop new features in parallel, and maintain your > patches without impacting the rest of the developers. > > With SVN, if you don't have commit access, you only have two > possibilities: store a lot of patches, and reapply them by hand at > each update, or use a dirty trick like git-svn. I'm using git-svn > right now: it is great to be able to commit locally, but it's a bit > heavy to use. > |
|
|
immutability bit if people want to play with it and that not everybody wants that? Cmake fixes proposed by geoffroy some weeks ago? Stef On Jun 25, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > On 6/25/2010 1:05 AM, Geoffroy Couprie wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/24/2010 7:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>>> >>>> One user could create a project, then others may create forks or >>>> subforks of his project(s) >>> >>> How exactly is this a good thing? I don't want 200 forked Squeak VM >>> versions; I want one canonical source that people can build from. >>> >> >> Forks can be really useful for people who have to maintain a set of >> patches that may not be accepted in the repository (applications >> requiring a specific VM configuration, servers, etc). > > Do we have this problem? What patches do you or anyone else have that can or should not be integrated in the main source? > > Cheers, > - Andreas > >> With the >> branching workflows in DVCS, you can still get updates from the main >> repository, develop new features in parallel, and maintain your >> patches without impacting the rest of the developers. >> >> With SVN, if you don't have commit access, you only have two >> possibilities: store a lot of patches, and reapply them by hand at >> each update, or use a dirty trick like git-svn. I'm using git-svn >> right now: it is great to be able to commit locally, but it's a bit >> heavy to use. >> |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 6/25/2010 1:05 AM, Geoffroy Couprie wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/24/2010 7:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>>> >>>> One user could create a project, then others may create forks or >>>> subforks of his project(s) >>> >>> How exactly is this a good thing? I don't want 200 forked Squeak VM >>> versions; I want one canonical source that people can build from. >>> >> >> Forks can be really useful for people who have to maintain a set of >> patches that may not be accepted in the repository (applications >> requiring a specific VM configuration, servers, etc). > > Do we have this problem? What patches do you or anyone else have that can or > should not be integrated in the main source? > I have my CMake patches (to be able to build the Windows VM with CMake), and some patches to build the Windows VM with GCC. I sent the patches here 2 months ago (you never answered on that thread), and although people seemed interested by that code, it was never added in the repository. I had to store the CMake patches, and then the other Windows patches, and working on these different pieces of code without being able to commit was painful. I also modify the VM for self education/fun purposes, and these modifications would never be accepted in the main tree (heavily breaking large parts of the memory allocations, weird plugins, etc). |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 6/25/2010 1:05 AM, Geoffroy Couprie wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Andreas Raab<[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/24/2010 7:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>>> >>>> One user could create a project, then others may create forks or >>>> subforks of his project(s) >>> >>> How exactly is this a good thing? I don't want 200 forked Squeak VM >>> versions; I want one canonical source that people can build from. >>> >> >> Forks can be really useful for people who have to maintain a set of >> patches that may not be accepted in the repository (applications >> requiring a specific VM configuration, servers, etc). > > Do we have this problem? What patches do you or anyone else have that can or > should not be integrated in the main source? I for one, really do have this problem. My list of patches now runs to 13 files, totalling 3871 lines. Note: I'm not blaming the current maintainers; I think they're doing a great job. It's just that some things never make it into the official tree. Sometimes the maintainers don't accept a patch. Sometimes my employer won't allow me to release a patch to the public. Sometimes I'm too embarrassed by my code to release it. Whatever the reason, patches are a way of life. We need to find tools and systems to ensure that this life doesn't suck. My vote's for git, not because I particularly "like" it, but because my understanding's that it's the best tool available when it comes to merging and maintaning patches. I 'm told it makes merges and keeping patches up to date as the main trunk diverges, as easy as possible. If there's a better tool, I'm sure someone on the list will correct me! - Andrew PS: My experience has been that, when I do post a patch to the list, it's met with silence. I found the lack of feedback (even negative responses) disconcerting. So I no longer try terribly hard to get patches into the tree. |
«
Return to Squeak VM
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |