Re: EB-lite developer roll call

Robert Lazzurs said:
> Erm, may I suggest you just move that to www.everybuddy.com?  Since the
> new codebase is going to take over the place of the old one it would
> make sense if the site was doing the same.Yes, eventually, but I was intending to do that once the new site has been
properly put together. We're already having to make a set of URLs
obsolete, only to overlay them with a new set in the same tree
(www.everybuddy.com/something). I'd prefer not to do that with a temporary
site, and then again with the "real" one. Besides, when we do switch, this
scheme would allow us to just set a redirect from anything under
www.everybuddy.com/eb-lite/ to a page saying "you followed a link to a
temporary site - the real one is [link]here[/link]"

>> Once this list is complete, I'll forward it on to Rob, who will add all
>> the users. Please do include your IM contact information so he can
>> catch you, so you can change your passwords directly after he sets up
>> the accounts.>
> Strange that, I am on this list :)  Can I just suggest that you just
> post the info to the list and I will add it when I can get a hold of you
> on IM.One, two, three...MEREDYDD YOU WALLY!

*ahem* sorry Rob, temporary loss of brain function. Please continue as
normal - you handle the accounts stuff :)
> I should have subv up by tonight....could I have clarification as to why
> we are using it please?
Generally, because it kicks CVS around the block in terms of flexibility
(Rename a file? Why would anyone want to do that?), robustness (Can *you*
remember which characters cause interesting effects when used in CVS
filenames, because RCS uses it as an internal separator? And what about
binary files?), and general feature density (adding a directory
recursively to CVS falls foul of the above, or at least has failed for me
with no obvious reason before).

It also makes commits properly atomic, and decently versioned. Under CVS,
if I change three source files and then commit, I actually make three
separate transactions - for example, taking foo.c from 1.1 to 1.2, bar.c
from 1.19 to 1.20, and baz.c from 1.5 to 1.6. If one of these changes
fails, the one before it stays (because it's already been completed), and
the one after it doesn't happen, leading to possible inconsistency in the
contents of the repository. The only thing these three events share is a
commit log (copied) and a timestamp. If I want to roll back the
repository, I have to crawl through the timestamps and roll them all back
individually.

With Subversion, by contrast, when I commit, I take the entire repository
from, say, version 22 to version 23. If it fails, it fails, and the repos
isn't touched. If it succeeds, the whole thing changes. If I want to roll
back to version 18, I can, with one command.

In other words, it just makes my life one hell of a lot easier :)
We've been running on subversion since EbQt started really getting
anywhere, and although we have encountered some issues with it, at no
point ever have I banged my head on the table to the extent I used to with
CVS. I call that progress :)
> Also I presume there are other services required, bugzilla for example?
That would be nice. I'm afraid I don't know how to use it, so if someone
would care to enlighten me (or give an appropriate link), I'd be most
grateful. Any others you can think of?
Meredydd
--
Maintainer, Everybuddy project
http://www.everybuddy.com/

AIM: blip109
MSN: [email protected]
Yahoo: modula7