On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:07 AM, BigBaaadBob <[email protected]> wrote: > > One bummer with collapsing to BZR: I don't think there is a git-bzr is > there? > > I agree with the below suggestions. There really needs to be ONE repo > that is authoritative. > > I especially agree that it is better practice to NOT check-in > generated contents like the epydocs, but rather have them get > generated by the Makefile or something. I've done a lot of work > already on the Makefile (there is some stuff in it that isn't exactly > right). > > Also, can we solve the empty-directories problem somehow in the > authoritative repo? Currently the directory structure of Web2Py apps > is a side effect of the fact they are cloned from the demo application > that has empty dirs in the SCM. I think it would be much more robust > if there were a "create new empty application" API or something that > would assure the correct directory structure as required by Web2Py. > > I've modified the Makefile locally to generate all missing > subdirectories for existing apps. Remember: Git doesn't (currently) > track empty directories.
None of these track (or version) directories; only files, and their paths: git, mercurial, cvs, .... These do: svn, bzr ---- The more I use mercurial and bazaar both, and the more I am using git for work, but more I lean towards hg --- and maybe will towards git someday, but the point is the less I appreciate bzr. The repository (git or otherwise - whoever maintains it) --- should have a placeholder to hold empty directories. I did this in an hg mirror. Maybe web2py main directory should just hold empty files as directory placeholders? (I don't know - on one hand it seems as so much "litter") > > > On Mar 3, 6:39 pm, AchipA <[email protected]> wrote: > > A few suggestions: > > > > - make one repository a master repository and just mirror it from the > > other(s), do not 'do' anything separately with the other or they will > > diverge over time. I can make a mirroring script although bzr has some > > svn integration via the bzr-svn plugin. > > > > - epydocs and the .tar files are IMO distribution parts, not source. > > You can of course keep them there if it's easier for you, but put them > > on ignore in that case. Patchsets will get smaller and branching/ > > pulling/pushing will get faster. > > > > - use branches/tags to release 'official' versions. These would > > include whatever needs to be generated (tar, epydoc, ubuntu packages, > > whatever) and will be easier to reference than just a revision number > > > > - use merging to include patches - again, easier to track and manage > > (I know, you're not a fan of patch automatization but it really is > > easier). > > > > On Mar 3, 11:00 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This really helps. Now I understand the problem and will fix it > > > tonight. > > > > > They are both wrong but bzr is better, It only misses some epydocs. I > > > am not updated them periodically because some people asked for that. > > > The .tar files are not necessary when the applications folder is > > > there. > > > > > Massimo > > > > > On Mar 3, 2:28 pm, Markus Gritsch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:14 PM, mdipierro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > If you look in the repository Makefile I have a script and I > > > > > > > make svn > > > > > bzr commit -m "..." > > > > > cd ../web2py_svn > > > > > svn commit -m "..." > > > > > > > I do not understand why they are not the same. Other than that the > > > > > other svn problems have been solved. > > > > > > I just checked out the current BZR and SVN revisions, and there are > > > > several differences between them: > > > > > > SVN contains several files which are not present in the BZR repo: > > > > > > __exit__.py > > > > applications/examples/modules/images.py > > > > applications/examples/static/epydoc/gluon*.html > > > > applications/examples/static/epydoc/toc-gluon*.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/authentication.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/authorization.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/crud.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/features.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/orm.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/pyamf_howto.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/thanks.html > > > > applications/examples/views/default/web2py_vs_php.html > > > > > > Conversely the BZR repo contains files which are not present in SVN: > > > > > > admin.tar > > > > examples.tar > > > > index.yaml > > > > TODO > > > > applications/admin/static/eamy/* > > > > > > And some are different in both repositories: > > > > > > Makefile > > > > scripts/cleancss.py > > > > scripts/repair.py > > > > scripts/session2trash.py > > > > scripts/sync_languages.py > > > > scripts/tickets2db.py > > > > scripts/ > > > > > > To me it remains unclear which repo is the authorative one. > > > > > > Markus > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
