nanogui: Re: [nanogui] Is Nano-X dead? - Move to SVN+Trac?
Subject:
Re: [nanogui] Is Nano-X dead? - Move to SVN+Trac?
From:
Daniel ####@####.####
Date:
7 Jul 2008 19:25:49 -0000
Message-Id: <48726DA3.5070000@timeterminal.se>
I would really like to promote Bazaar as the distributed version control
system: http://bazaar-vcs.org . It takes the power from Git but makes it
alot easier to start with. It has, since Februari, become a part of GNU
and it's the favored tool for Ubuntu development. Please take a look:
http://bazaar-vcs.org/BzrVsGit
For blogging, the Trac has a blog plugin:
http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/FullBlogPlugin
Trac has alot of plugins, just take a look at: http://trac-hacks.org
There's just one catch; the Bzr plugin for Trac is still under
development. Although it works, it can show some strange behavior in
some particular functions. Nothing critical, but it's still under heavy
development: https://code.launchpad.net/~trac-bzr-team/trac-bzr/trunk
I think this will fit your requests pretty good.
Anyone else like to comment?
Regards
Daniel
Greg Haerr wrote:
> : I'd like once again to push for a move to SVN (or better, Bazaar) and
> : using Trac for the website. Then many people could contribute easier
> : both on code but as well the documentation if held in the Wiki included
> : with Trac.
> :
> : And it will probably make the project appear more active than it does
> : currently, which hopefully generates more users and contributors.
>
> I completely agree that the website makes the project appear
> completely out-of-date. And we need a better source code
> control system.
>
> The original problem is that I've never been into keeping
> up web pages (obviously). I put together a plan a couple
> of months ago for a complete updating, which was to
> include:
>
> o automated blog-style website with wiki
> o release of CVS as 0.92 as is, with 0.93 after some work/testing
> o posting of updated API documentation
> o move to git or other modern, distributed SCCS
>
> Certainly nano-X should have a website that would allow
> user-posting of FAQs, documentation of setup and configuration
> issues, how to use fonts, images, transparency, etc. This
> could all go in an open wiki. I would like a section that
> would allow blogging (by me and some others) seperately
> from the wiki. All the current docs could be re-formatted
> fairly easily I think.
>
> With regards to SCCS, I've always been nervous with allowing
> write capability, because most contributers aren't testing on
> enough platforms (and more importantly framebuffer modes.
> However, this was done in the past for
> the eCos and RTEMS platforms. I think moving to a git-style
> SCCS would allow users to easily house and handle contributions
> if not to the whole, then to each other. Lately few (in spite of
> the way-outdated site) have volunteered many contributions.
> And of course I have been behind with some contributions.
> (I would like to have a full discussion on issues related
> to back-contributions seperately).
>
> Please comment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
