Hi mcclimers,
I wanted to (re)try to do some hacking on mcclim. So I have checkout the official CVS repository (from which the quicklisp package seems to be made of) and (slowly) start working on it.
Then it occured to me there are many public fork of mcclim on github, for instance: https://github.com/onixie/mcclim https://github.com/slyrus/mcclim https://github.com/mmontone/mcclim https://github.com/timoore/mcclim
All of them were active in the last 4 months and have their own set of improvements while the official CVS last patch dates back to july 2011.
So my question is, can someone with enough credential collects (and maybe selects) those patches and apply them to the official repository? (I know I can 'git clone' one of those repo, cherry pick what I want and add my patches but then it will be yet another unofficial repo).
Best,
On 08/24/2012 10:31 AM, Manuel Giraud wrote:
Hi mcclimers,
I wanted to (re)try to do some hacking on mcclim. So I have checkout the official CVS repository (from which the quicklisp package seems to be made of) and (slowly) start working on it.
Then it occured to me there are many public fork of mcclim on github, for instance: https://github.com/onixie/mcclim https://github.com/slyrus/mcclim https://github.com/mmontone/mcclim https://github.com/timoore/mcclim
All of them were active in the last 4 months and have their own set of improvements while the official CVS last patch dates back to july 2011.
I just created my fork for some work, and was unawhere of the other forks on github. My bad. I will look at what the other repos on github have and see about merging their changes into my repo.
So my question is, can someone with enough credential collects (and maybe selects) those patches and apply them to the official repository? (I know I can 'git clone' one of those repo, cherry pick what I want and add my patches but then it will be yet another unofficial repo).
Best,
I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking is finished, but here goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS. Are people agreeable with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo become the "official" repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host.
Tim
On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore moore@bricoworks.com wrote:
I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking is finished, but here goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS. Are people agreeable with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo become the "official" repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host.
I'm very much in favor of moving to git. git-svn works well enough for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is always uncomfortable for me.
But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net? I like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and timoore/mcclim.
Rudi
Rudolf Schlatte rudi@constantly.at writes:
On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore moore@bricoworks.com wrote:
I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking is finished, but here goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS. Are people agreeable with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo become the "official" repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host.
I'm very much in favor of moving to git. git-svn works well enough for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is always uncomfortable for me.
But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net? I like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and timoore/mcclim.
Same here. I'm too in favor to switch to git (which is clearly easier than CVS) but keeping the official mcclim repository where the project is seems better to me. github is cool, fun, social and whatnot but I find it hard to get an official software out of it.
Hi;
I also would like to see a single official repository, whether git/github or otherwise, with continued incorporation of patches/improvements. (Some time ago I submitted patches for the scigraph portion of mcclim which I would have liked to seen included.) Has there been any movement on this, especially as regards quicklisp?
If there is anything I can do to help, I would certainly be happy to do so. Please advise.
Thanks!
-jm
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Manuel Giraud manuel@ledu-giraud.frwrote:
Rudolf Schlatte rudi@constantly.at writes:
On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore moore@bricoworks.com wrote:
I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking
is finished, but here
goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS.
Are people agreeable
with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo
become the "official"
repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host.
I'm very much in favor of moving to git. git-svn works well enough for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is always uncomfortable for me.
But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net? I like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and timoore/mcclim.
Same here. I'm too in favor to switch to git (which is clearly easier than CVS) but keeping the official mcclim repository where the project is seems better to me. github is cool, fun, social and whatnot but I find it hard to get an official software out of it.
-- Manuel Giraud
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
Personally, I hate 'git'. My old brain has a far easier time making the correct mental model for CVS or SVN than 'git'. But that's me.
If you do decide to move to 'git', or anything else for that matter, then I STRONGLY suggest you do it in a fashion whereby you do NOT lose the history of the files. There's a lot of valuable info in the commit messages and the version trees. Just taking the top of trunk from CVS and making a 'git' repo from it is not acceptable in my opinion.
Michael McDonald mikemac@mikemac.com
On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:19 PM, John Morrison wrote:
Hi;
I also would like to see a single official repository, whether git/github or otherwise, with continued incorporation of patches/improvements. (Some time ago I submitted patches for the scigraph portion of mcclim which I would have liked to seen included.) Has there been any movement on this, especially as regards quicklisp?
If there is anything I can do to help, I would certainly be happy to do so. Please advise.
Thanks!
-jm
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Manuel Giraud manuel@ledu-giraud.fr wrote: Rudolf Schlatte rudi@constantly.at writes:
On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore moore@bricoworks.com wrote:
I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking is finished, but here goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS. Are people agreeable with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo become the "official" repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host.
I'm very much in favor of moving to git. git-svn works well enough for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is always uncomfortable for me.
But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net? I like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and timoore/mcclim.
Same here. I'm too in favor to switch to git (which is clearly easier than CVS) but keeping the official mcclim repository where the project is seems better to me. github is cool, fun, social and whatnot but I find it hard to get an official software out of it.
-- Manuel Giraud
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
After exporting to CVS, if you put it on github you can use a subversion-client to access it iirc (they implemented that once as an april fool joke, but it seems to really work). The only problem is that you have Subversion's disadvantages: you need constant internet access to commit. But that is only for the people that don't manage to make the step to git and choose to use subversion on the repository.
2012/11/1 Michael McDonald mikemac@mikemac.com
Personally, I hate 'git'. My old brain has a far easier time making the correct mental model for CVS or SVN than 'git'. But that's me.
If you do decide to move to 'git', or anything else for that matter, then I STRONGLY suggest you do it in a fashion whereby you do NOT lose the history of the files. There's a lot of valuable info in the commit messages and the version trees. Just taking the top of trunk from CVS and making a 'git' repo from it is not acceptable in my opinion.
Michael McDonald mikemac@mikemac.com
On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:19 PM, John Morrison wrote:
Hi;
I also would like to see a single official repository, whether git/github or otherwise, with continued incorporation of patches/improvements. (Some time ago I submitted patches for the scigraph portion of mcclim which I would have liked to seen included.) Has there been any movement on this, especially as regards quicklisp?
If there is anything I can do to help, I would certainly be happy to do so. Please advise.
Thanks!
-jm
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Manuel Giraud manuel@ledu-giraud.frwrote:
Rudolf Schlatte rudi@constantly.at writes:
On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore moore@bricoworks.com wrote:
I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking
is finished, but here
goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS.
Are people agreeable
with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo
become the "official"
repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host.
I'm very much in favor of moving to git. git-svn works well enough for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is always uncomfortable for me.
But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net? I like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and timoore/mcclim.
Same here. I'm too in favor to switch to git (which is clearly easier than CVS) but keeping the official mcclim repository where the project is seems better to me. github is cool, fun, social and whatnot but I find it hard to get an official software out of it.
-- Manuel Giraud
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
On 11/01/2012 12:11 AM, Michael McDonald wrote:
Personally, I hate 'git'. My old brain has a far easier time making the correct mental model for CVS or SVN than 'git'. But that's me.
If you do decide to move to 'git', or anything else for that matter, then I STRONGLY suggest you do it in a fashion whereby you do NOT lose the history of the files. There's a lot of valuable info in the commit messages and the version trees. Just taking the top of trunk from CVS and making a 'git' repo from it is not acceptable in my opinion.
People who maintain their own git repos seem to have started by cloning Andreas Fuchs' mirror, which has a complete history:
commit 3cb03ba6a0bfbd54e5076b20b627905d5517f043 Author: Mike McDonald <mikemac> Date: Thu Jun 8 22:01:12 2000 +0000
Initial check-in
I admit that I forget how to extract the same information out of CVS, but it looks good to me.
Tim
Michael McDonald mikemac@mikemac.com mailto:mikemac@mikemac.com commit 3cb03ba6a0bfbd54e5076b20b627905d5517f043
Author: Mike McDonald <mikemac> Date: Thu Jun 8 22:01:12 2000 +0000
Initial check-in
On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:19 PM, John Morrison wrote:
Hi;
I also would like to see a single official repository, whether git/github or otherwise, with continued incorporation of patches/improvements. (Some time ago I submitted patches for the scigraph portion of mcclim which I would have liked to seen included.) Has there been any movement on this, especially as regards quicklisp?
If there is anything I can do to help, I would certainly be happy to do so. Please advise.
Thanks!
-jm
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Manuel Giraud <manuel@ledu-giraud.fr mailto:manuel@ledu-giraud.fr> wrote:
Rudolf Schlatte <rudi@constantly.at <mailto:rudi@constantly.at>> writes: > On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore <moore@bricoworks.com <mailto:moore@bricoworks.com>> wrote: > >> I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking is finished, but here >> goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS. Are people agreeable >> with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo become the "official" >> repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host. > > I'm very much in favor of moving to git. git-svn works well enough > for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is > always uncomfortable for me. > > But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net <http://common-lisp.net/>? I > like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar > with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of > example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and > timoore/mcclim. Same here. I'm too in favor to switch to git (which is clearly easier than CVS) but keeping the official mcclim repository where the project is seems better to me. github is cool, fun, social and whatnot but I find it hard to get an official software out of it. -- Manuel Giraud _______________________________________________ mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net <mailto:mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net mailto:mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
Was there ever a resolution to this? I have some bugfix/modernization patches to scigraph made against the old CVS repo, and I think I might need to make more, and it would be cool to know where the "official" repo is so as to minimize forking.
-jm
On Wednesday 31 October 2012, Michael McDonald wrote:
Personally, I hate 'git'. My old brain has a far easier time making the correct mental model for CVS or SVN than 'git'. But that's me.
If you do decide to move to 'git', or anything else for that matter, then I STRONGLY suggest you do it in a fashion whereby you do NOT lose the history of the files. There's a lot of valuable info in the commit messages and the version trees. Just taking the top of trunk from CVS and making a 'git' repo from it is not acceptable in my opinion.
Michael McDonald mikemac@mikemac.com
On Oct 31, 2012, at 2:19 PM, John Morrison wrote:
Hi;
I also would like to see a single official repository, whether git/github or otherwise, with continued incorporation of patches/improvements. (Some time ago I submitted patches for the scigraph portion of mcclim which I would have liked to seen included.) Has there been any movement on this, especially as regards quicklisp?
If there is anything I can do to help, I would certainly be happy to do so. Please advise.
Thanks!
-jm
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Manuel Giraud manuel@ledu-giraud.fr wrote:
Rudolf Schlatte rudi@constantly.at writes:
On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:40, Timothy Moore moore@bricoworks.com wrote:
I was going to save this mail until my current round of mcclim hacking is finished, but here goes. I'm not particularly interested in continuing to work with CVS. Are people agreeable with moving to git? I'm not invested (at all) in having my github repo become the "official" repo, but a site like github has a lot of advantages as a host.
I'm very much in favor of moving to git. git-svn works well enough for upstream svn archives, but syncing back and forth with cvs is always uncomfortable for me.
But could we leave the "official" git archive on common-lisp.net? I like github, but when I'm checking out a project that I'm unfamiliar with, I hate having to decide between downloading (for the sake of example) onixie/mcclim, slyrus/mcclim, mmontone/mcclim and timoore/mcclim.
Same here. I'm too in favor to switch to git (which is clearly easier than CVS) but keeping the official mcclim repository where the project is seems better to me. github is cool, fun, social and whatnot but I find it hard to get an official software out of it.
-- Manuel Giraud
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
mcclim-devel mailing list mcclim-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mcclim-devel
-
John Morrison -
Joop Kiefte -
Manuel Giraud -
Michael McDonald -
Rudolf Schlatte -
Timothy Moore