On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 07:51:51AM -0500, IvorW wrote:
This has set me thinking, that we maybe we should have all the subsidiary modules in subversion also.
... ant managed by trac. Why not?
Can trac operate with multiple subversion repositories at different addresses or does it have to be under one roof (which may be a better idea anyway)?
The latter. Perhaps we could have an OpenGuides::* in the openguides trac/repo and CGI::Wiki::* in a new cgi-wiki trac/repo?
What's the maintenance status of CGI::Wiki these days? ISTR it's still Kake's but I've not seen any activity on it for a long time.
Cheers,
Dominic.
On Sat 07 Jan 2006, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
What's the maintenance status of CGI::Wiki these days? ISTR it's still Kake's but I've not seen any activity on it for a long time.
I'm too busy with other things to do anything with it at the moment. Nobody else really seems interested in it.
Kake
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:02:50PM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
I'm too busy with other things to do anything with it at the moment. Nobody else really seems interested in it.
I suspect that to a large extent means that it's working - I'm not aware of anyone having problems with it :)
How would you feel about putting it in subversion as discussed "just in case" (and either retaining maintainership or giving it to someone else, as you preferred?)
There isn't an immediate need to do that, but it fits in well with the idea of having some of the descendant modules in subversion.
Cheers,
Dominic.
On Sat 07 Jan 2006, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
How would you feel about putting it in subversion as discussed "just in case" (and either retaining maintainership or giving it to someone else, as you preferred?)
Putting it in subversion is fine by me. I think you have a tarball from doop of its CVS history? Or am I thinking of something else? I really don't think it would be a good idea to lose the history.
(With the proviso that unless the "subversion for dummies" that people keep promising me turns up, having it in subversion makes it even less likely that I'll ever do anything with it.)
Kake
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:01:10PM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
Putting it in subversion is fine by me. I think you have a tarball from doop of its CVS history? Or am I thinking of something else? I really don't think it would be a good idea to lose the history.
I had the OpenGuides CVS repo but not the rest.
(With the proviso that unless the "subversion for dummies" that people keep promising me turns up, having it in subversion makes it even less likely that I'll ever do anything with it.)
I wrote http://dev.openguides.org/wiki/Subversion when I set up OpenGuides in SVN - which, looking back at it is so short that it really is just the same as CVS for day-to-day working.
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 12:28:26PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 08:01:10PM +0000, Kake L Pugh wrote:
Putting it in subversion is fine by me. I think you have a tarball from doop of its CVS history? Or am I thinking of something else? I really don't think it would be a good idea to lose the history.
I had the OpenGuides CVS repo but not the rest.
I've now got all the cgi-wiki CVS modules and will be importing them into an SVN tree at https://urchin.earth.li/svn/cgi-wiki/ and myself and some others are working on an improvement to the database schema (using foreign keys to allow renaming functionality, essentially). Kake, assuming you're happy for me to upload CGI::Wiki, could you give me ownership on CGI::Wiki and the related modules on cpan?
Cheers,
Dominic.
-
Dominic Hargreaves -
Kake L Pugh