Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-java: November 1998:
Re: [FreeCiv-Java] Status

Re: [FreeCiv-Java] Status

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Esben Haabendal Soerensen <ehs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-java@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [FreeCiv-Java] Status
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 06 Nov 1998 21:32:45 -0600

Esben Haabendal Soerensen <ehs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hi (John)
> Did you incorporate my changes ?
> I could not find a v0.005 on

I've got everything except the networking code incorportated.  I ran
out of time when I was working on it.  I should have something up on

> I am a little confused about how this patch thingy is meant
> to work paralel to the CVS.

OK.  Basically, here's what happens.  I do have CVS archive here, but
you don't need to know (or care) about it.

All that you have to do is make a diff with the changes you suggest,
and mail the diff to the mailing list.  I will then examine it and
apply it and make a new release.  (Checking it into my local CVS tree, 
but again, this is hidden.)  You do not need to do anything with the
$Id$ tags when making a diff.

> It seems like you (freeciv dudes) use sending patchfiles much
> more than comitting to CVS.  Why is that ?

This is done for the same reasons that the Linux kernel people do.

 * It's easier to discuss patches sent in e-mail.
   It's easy to have a thread discussing whether or not a given
   approach is best in e-mail, but not so in CVS.

 * It allows peer review before comitting patches to the program.
   This helps to preempt bugs.

 * It eliminates the need to have a dedicated CVS server, which can
   be a security liability in some cases.

 * It is easier for people to follow the changes (for some)

> It seems like a much more tedious task than doing a cvs commit.

For the person that's doing the CVS (me), yes.  For you, it's no more

> Another question:  Who has write access to the freeciv cvs ?
> Anyone ?

I would suppose Mitch and David.  I don't know for sure.

> As I see it our current phase is the design and framework coding phase
> (phase 1), and in this phase it seems like a good idea that we are only
> us two.  If we were o many people we would never get a proposal out there :-)

There are more people on the list than just the two of us.

(PS to those of you reading: feel free to participate in the coding if 
you'd like!)

> But for this phase to proceed as quickly as possible I think we should
> use the CVS server as the distribution method.
> No need to send patch files around, when we are only us two.

This is a valid point, in the early development stage, the patch
method could indeed slow us down.  I hadn't thought of that.

I will see if I can work something up by the time you're able to work
on it some more next week.  I apologize for the delay, there have been 
some unexpected events in the last 1.5 weeks that have really cut into 
my development time.

> This might result in a lot of commits, and the cvs root might be
> littered with minor versions, but we could just start over again
> when we begin the next phase.

I don't care if there are lots of commits.  That's good, actually.
After all, it's my disk that would get full, not yours :-)

> /Esben  (bart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> : But for some things, Perl just isn't the optimal choice.
> (yet)   :-)
>              -- Larry Wall in <199702221943.LAA20388@xxxxxxxx>

Hehe :-)


John Goerzen   Linux, Unix consulting & programming   jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) |
Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]