Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Your synth wishlist?
From: John Check (j4strngs_AT_bitless.net)
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 03:09:11 EEST
On Friday 30 July 2004 05:03 pm, Stephen Hassard wrote:
> subversion might be a better choice if you have lots of binaries. It
> keeps state much better than cvs, such that a move of a repository
> folder will be remembered in the repository.
>
Whatever. I know CVS. Both would be nice. It's the concept, not the color.
> John Check wrote:
> > On Friday 30 July 2004 01:27 pm, Dave Robillard wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 05:09, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> >
> > -snip-
> > -snip-
> >
> >>(Thanks for that, by the way, I totally forgot about subpatches)
> >>
> >>>To make it all perfect there should be a versioning system,
> >>>but I guess that's a bit much to ask for :)
> >>
> >>Versioning as in CVS for patch files? Well.. yeah, that is a bit much
> >>to ask for. :)
> >>
> >>Put your patches in a CVS repository. Done. (They will be xml and CVS
> >>will handle it nicely). CVS is actually a lot simpler to use than many
> >>people give it credit for, for simple things like this anyway.
> >
> > Heheh, thanks guy, I hadn't thought of that.
> > FWIW, one can handle binaries with CVS too. Files have to be flagged as
>
> such
>
> > (or CVS has to be configured to associate file extensions for binaries)
>
> and
>
> > it takes a lot more space than text, but it works.
> >
> > So, how about having the "save" bits be smart enough to hand things off
> > to
> >
> > CVS? Could be the mother of all patch librarians.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 03:03:03 EEST