[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Our SVN layout is not that smart OR should we change the SVN layout? (take 2)

On 6/24/06, Bas Wijnen <shevek@fmf.nl> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:23:24AM +0300, Eddy Petri??or wrote:
> One of the goals of the team, IMO, is to have at least a common
> standard for what should our packages provide, thus I feel that all
> games should have correct watch files (where applicable) menu files
> and desktop files.

I agree.

> Adding support for all of these at once for all packages it is nearly
> impossible without filling the harddisk with all branches and
> realeases of all the games.
> Thus, I propose the following layout:

Looks good to me.

Since there was nobody speaking against this, I will make the necessary changes.

If anybody has checkouts before the move it will be only a matter of
calling "svn switch" with the proper parameters. Please ask for more
information or look in the SVN book[1]

> P.S.: shouldn't we add something like a "dropped" directory for the
> likes of "cube"? I thought of deleting it, but it would have the risk
> of people not reusing the work which has been done in case a new
> voluteer appears.

IMO this must indeed be documented, but svn is not the place to do so.  The
wiki is much better for that I think.  Of course it must be in a place where
people look before they start packaging.  I would personally start packaging
at my own hd and only after that move it into svn, so for me at least that
wouldn't work anyway.  I might however check the wiki to see if it was already

Ok, then it should be specified somewhere in the Games/Unsuitable[2]
at Cube's section that packaging was attempted and was dropped
(pointing for more info to the associated bug (#360414) ).

Goneri, could you please respond on that bug? There was a request to
document the legal issues encountered.

[1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.switchwc.html
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/Games/Unsuitable
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

Reply to: