GSoC Project commits (Was "Re: [26439] users")
Hey Chris! Good to see you're making progress in your GSoC project, most excited to see it completed! About this commit though.... it was discussed on the this list some time ago whether GSoC work should be committed to trunk or to a branch, and the consensus was that, this being SCM and therefore moving back and forth being an easy operation, GSoC students should commit to either based on their own judgement. Seems to me like you clearly don't feel comfortable enough to commit this work to trunk, so why not put it in an appropriate branch? Seems to me like a more standard and expected place to find experimental code like this. Regards,... -jmpp On Jun 23, 2007, at 9:10 AM, source_changes@macosforge.org wrote:
Revision 26439 Author sfiera@macports.org Date 2007-06-23 06:10:09 -0700 (Sat, 23 Jun 2007) Log Message
Chris Pickel, GSoC project 2007 * Currently very messy; obviously this will change * Lots of warnings still * This can be safely built into MacPorts (as I have on my system), though I'm not yet putting it into trunk Added Paths
users/sfiera/ users/sfiera/registry2.0/ users/sfiera/registry2.0/.gdb_history users/sfiera/registry2.0/:w users/sfiera/registry2.0/Makefile users/sfiera/registry2.0/README users/sfiera/registry2.0/centry.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/centry.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/entry.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/entry.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/entryobj.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/entryobj.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/foo.db users/sfiera/registry2.0/graph.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/graph.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/graphobj.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/graphobj.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/item.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/item.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/itemobj.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/itemobj.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/registry.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/registry.dylib users/sfiera/registry2.0/registry.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/sql.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/sql.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/test.db users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/ users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/common.tcl users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/entry.tcl users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/item.tcl users/sfiera/registry2.0/util.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/util.h
On Jun 24, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Hey Chris!
Good to see you're making progress in your GSoC project, most excited to see it completed!
About this commit though.... it was discussed on the this list some time ago whether GSoC work should be committed to trunk or to a branch, and the consensus was that, this being SCM and therefore moving back and forth being an easy operation, GSoC students should commit to either based on their own judgement. Seems to me like you clearly don't feel comfortable enough to commit this work to trunk, so why not put it in an appropriate branch? Seems to me like a more standard and expected place to find experimental code like this.
Regards,...
-jmpp
Juan, What's the difference with subversion between a branch and a directory such as users/sfiera/registry2.0/? Paul
On Jun 23, 2007, at 18:16, Paul Guyot wrote:
On Jun 24, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
About this commit though.... it was discussed on the this list some time ago whether GSoC work should be committed to trunk or to a branch, and the consensus was that, this being SCM and therefore moving back and forth being an easy operation, GSoC students should commit to either based on their own judgement. Seems to me like you clearly don't feel comfortable enough to commit this work to trunk, so why not put it in an appropriate branch? Seems to me like a more standard and expected place to find experimental code like this.
What's the difference with subversion between a branch and a directory such as users/sfiera/registry2.0/?
If it were a complete branch of base, anyone could just check it out, compile it, and play with it. When registry2.0 is just a directory by itself like that, though, it requires more work: at least checking out base, then checking out (or exporting) registry2.0 into the correct place inside it. Maybe more changes; I don't know, since I don't really know how base works. If it were all codified into a branch, I wouldn't need to know. I'd just check it out and use it.
On Jun 24, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jun 23, 2007, at 18:16, Paul Guyot wrote:
On Jun 24, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
About this commit though.... it was discussed on the this list some time ago whether GSoC work should be committed to trunk or to a branch, and the consensus was that, this being SCM and therefore moving back and forth being an easy operation, GSoC students should commit to either based on their own judgement. Seems to me like you clearly don't feel comfortable enough to commit this work to trunk, so why not put it in an appropriate branch? Seems to me like a more standard and expected place to find experimental code like this.
What's the difference with subversion between a branch and a directory such as users/sfiera/registry2.0/?
If it were a complete branch of base, anyone could just check it out, compile it, and play with it. When registry2.0 is just a directory by itself like that, though, it requires more work: at least checking out base, then checking out (or exporting) registry2.0 into the correct place inside it. Maybe more changes; I don't know, since I don't really know how base works. If it were all codified into a branch, I wouldn't need to know. I'd just check it out and use it.
True. Yet, registry2.0 directory is completely inert C code for now, it's just a set of native Tcl commands. Copying this source code to trunk doesn't mean it will be used for any operation. It will not even be compiled with a ./configure && make sequence in base/ directory. Out of what Chris checked in, only tests can be executed. I believe this is why he didn't check in a full copy of base/. The rationale for checking the code in is that (a) he can use our SCM (b) we can see what he's up to. I had a previous version of this code by mail, but I appreciate that he publishes this in his users/ directory, so everyone can see. Paul
On Jun 23, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Paul Guyot wrote:
On Jun 24, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Hey Chris!
Good to see you're making progress in your GSoC project, most excited to see it completed!
About this commit though.... it was discussed on the this list some time ago whether GSoC work should be committed to trunk or to a branch, and the consensus was that, this being SCM and therefore moving back and forth being an easy operation, GSoC students should commit to either based on their own judgement. Seems to me like you clearly don't feel comfortable enough to commit this work to trunk, so why not put it in an appropriate branch? Seems to me like a more standard and expected place to find experimental code like this.
Regards,...
-jmpp
Juan,
What's the difference with subversion between a branch and a directory such as users/sfiera/registry2.0/?
Paul
Simply that is a more standard place to find code that considerably alters the way something in trunk works, nothing more. Just another dir, absolutely, but a more standard one (which is all I said by the way ;-). -jmpp
I was more interested in whether or not he really meant to commit his .gdb_history, the file called ":w" and a registry.dylib to the repository. :-) - Jordan On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
Hey Chris!
Good to see you're making progress in your GSoC project, most excited to see it completed!
About this commit though.... it was discussed on the this list some time ago whether GSoC work should be committed to trunk or to a branch, and the consensus was that, this being SCM and therefore moving back and forth being an easy operation, GSoC students should commit to either based on their own judgement. Seems to me like you clearly don't feel comfortable enough to commit this work to trunk, so why not put it in an appropriate branch? Seems to me like a more standard and expected place to find experimental code like this.
Regards,...
-jmpp
On Jun 23, 2007, at 9:10 AM, source_changes@macosforge.org wrote:
Revision 26439 Author sfiera@macports.org Date 2007-06-23 06:10:09 -0700 (Sat, 23 Jun 2007) Log Message
Chris Pickel, GSoC project 2007 * Currently very messy; obviously this will change * Lots of warnings still * This can be safely built into MacPorts (as I have on my system), though I'm not yet putting it into trunk Added Paths
users/sfiera/ users/sfiera/registry2.0/ users/sfiera/registry2.0/.gdb_history users/sfiera/registry2.0/:w users/sfiera/registry2.0/Makefile users/sfiera/registry2.0/README users/sfiera/registry2.0/centry.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/centry.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/entry.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/entry.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/entryobj.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/entryobj.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/foo.db users/sfiera/registry2.0/graph.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/graph.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/graphobj.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/graphobj.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/item.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/item.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/itemobj.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/itemobj.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/registry.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/registry.dylib users/sfiera/registry2.0/registry.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/sql.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/sql.h users/sfiera/registry2.0/test.db users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/ users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/common.tcl users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/entry.tcl users/sfiera/registry2.0/tests/item.tcl users/sfiera/registry2.0/util.c users/sfiera/registry2.0/util.h
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
On 24 Jun, 2007, at 19:45, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I was more interested in whether or not he really meant to commit his .gdb_history, the file called ":w" and a registry.dylib to the repository. :-)
Sometimes I type things twice in vi. For good measure. (note to self: in the future, don't use `svn import`) Anyway, as I think Paul was getting to, the reason I didn't make a branch is because the main reason I checked it in was for his benefit--but I figured it would be better to let others see as well. If I had wanted others to try using it, I would have checked it straight into trunk/base. It's no problem to build and install registry2.0 on an active system, because currently we always `package require registry 1.0` and that won't skip major version numbers. Chris
participants (5)
-
Chris Pickel
-
Jordan K. Hubbard
-
Juan Manuel Palacios
-
Paul Guyot
-
Ryan Schmidt