Branch for 1.0?

renanse said:

We tagged the source 1_0, so it is possible to pull exactly that out.

Shouldn't we branch it? Will we release bugfixed versions for 1.0?

I think a tag makes more sense and if we are retro-fixing bugs they should be in 1.01, 1.02, etc. tags rather than in the branch.

What I meant was: Are we developing funky new features, check them in, and later on we decide to fix some (severe) bugs in 1.0 and release a 1.01 without the funky new features? If yes, we need a branch not a tag…

edit: Btw. you can still tag inside a branch, also a branch is a tag as well, darkfrog, so what you wrote is not really an argument

new development for the 2.0 should not take place in this cvs repo, but rather in something new on google code or something else, preferably using svn…and leave this cvs for bugfixes to 1.0

uh :-o, really?

SVN would be nice, but…

…we should convert CVS history then - will be quite some effort involved :expressionless: (getting ",v" files from, convert, have google/sf people inject the svn stuff)

(I'm not a fan of google code, btw. What about Sourceforge?)

that was my thought at least… take the opportunity to start almost fresh when we are making such big changes… do we really need the cvs history?

i don't care which repo we use, as long as we don't use cvs anymore

Personally, I don't really care what repo software we use… I just don't want to use…  too dang slow.  And it would be nice to be able to trim out all those junk directories we are stuck with (the cvs admins don't seem to want to help there.)

I have both Google Code and Sourceforge projects set up with jme. I can move the code to either one and start setting up accounts. Why do you dislike Google Code Irrisor? It's ease of use seems like a huge plus to me. Sourceforge is fairly cluttered and a bit of a pain.

I have to agree with Mark, I don't like SourceForge or  I haven't a lot of experience with Google Code, but it seems pretty nice and I seriously doubt we'll ever have to worry about performance or reliability from them.  Further, we get the added benefit of better search engine integration.

mojomonk said:

Why do you dislike Google Code Irrisor?

It's more a political issue - kind of anti-monopoly-reflex :), but Google already knows everything... so essentially: I have nothing against Google Code other than it being Google Code.

As I know about the problems with sf, using Google Code will be fine with me if you guys think that it's a lot better.

MrCoder said:

do we really need the cvs history?

I think it's important to see who wrote what and esp. when it was written (and even what for, if the commit-message tells that). I use annotate quite often.