Re: [FreeCiv-Java] Status
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Esben Haabendal Soerensen <ehs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi (John)
> Did you incorporate my changes ?
> I could not find a v0.005 on software.complete.org.
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
> 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>
John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting & programming jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org