[mcclim-devel] Official repository lagging?

[John Morrison]

Was there ever a resolution to this?  I have some bugfix/modernization
patches to scigraph made against the old CVS repo, and I think I might
need to make more, and it would be cool to know where the "official"
repo is so as to minimize forking.

-jm

On Wednesday 31 October 2012, Michael McDonald wrote:
> Personally, I hate 'git'. My old brain has a far easier time making the
> correct mental model for CVS or SVN than 'git'. But that's me.
> 
> If you do decide to move to 'git', or anything else for that matter, then I
> STRONGLY suggest you do it in a fashion whereby you do NOT lose the
> history of the files. There's a lot of valuable info in the commit
> messages and the version trees. Just taking the top of trunk from CVS and
> making a 'git' repo from it is not acceptable in my opinion.
> 
> Michael McDonald
> mikemac at mikemac.com
> 
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:19 PM, John Morrison wrote:
> > Hi;
> > 
> > I also would like to see a single official repository, whether git/github
> > or otherwise, with continued incorporation of patches/improvements. 
> > (Some time ago I submitted patches for the scigraph portion of mcclim
> > which I would have liked to seen included.)  Has there been any movement
> > on this, especially as regards quicklisp?
> > 
> > If there is anything I can do to help, I would certainly be happy to do
> > so.  Please advise.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > -jm
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Manuel Giraud <manuel at ledu-giraud.fr>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Rudolf Schlatte <rudi at constantly.at> writes:
> > > On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore <moore at bricoworks.com> wrote:
> > >> I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking
> > >> is finished, but here goes. I'm not particularly interested in
> > >> continuing to work with CVS. Are people agreeable with moving to git?
> > >> I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo become the
> > >> "official" repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a
> > >> host.
> > > 
> > > I'm very much in favor of moving to git.  git-svn works well enough
> > > for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is
> > > always uncomfortable for me.
> > > 
> > > But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net?  I
> > > like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar
> > > with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of
> > > example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and
> > > timoore/mcclim.
> > 
> > Same here. I'm too in favor to switch to git (which is clearly easier
> > than CVS) but keeping the official mcclim repository where the project
> > is seems better to me. github is cool, fun, social and whatnot but I
> > find it hard to get an official software out of it.
> > 
> > --
> > Manuel Giraud
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mcclim-devel mailing list
> > mcclim-devel at common-lisp.net
> > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mcclim-devel mailing list
> > mcclim-devel at common-lisp.net
> > http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel


-- 
--- John Morrison
--- john.nmi.morrison at gmail.com