[MPlayer-DOCS] homepage repository --> Subversion

[The Wanderer]

(I *still* have to fix that attribution-line date thing; it keeps on
resetting itself.)

Diego Biurrun wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 05:39:11PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> Attila Kinali wrote:
>> 
>>> I have a better idea: From: "svn-user" <syncmail at mplayerhq.hu>
>>> Then we have the user and dont clutter the subject. (BTW: that's
>>> the way how the cvs mails work)
>> 
>> I would like to formally request that the main code repository
>> *NOT* be moved to SVN until both this or something like it and a
>> mechanism such that the actual filenames (and, if applicable under
>> SVN, file version number) are visible without having to display the
>> message body have been implemented.
> 
> Easy, we're beta-testing this here for a reason...

Not a problem - I just wanted to make sure my view was heard, rather
than let it pass and risk the change being made without the realization
that there *would* be objections.

> Besides the conversion is a lot of work if you convert hacked
> renaming operations into proper svn renames like I do.  It's not a
> matter of 3-4 hours.

I can indeed imagine the kind of tedious which that would be. I likewise
would support doing it the Right Way, but I'm glad you're the one doing
it and not me. <grin>

> Anyway, Subversion does not have file version numbers, revisions are
> repository-wide (which is one of the benefits of using Subversion).

I wasn't sure, that's why I said "if applicable". As noted in my other
mail, I don't see much obvious benefit to it, and at least one downside
in that there is no clean way to be sure what version (by number) you
are changing *from* (or at least I don't see one right now, though I'll
admit I'm short on sleep this morning) - but I'm entirely willing to
grant that there may be benefits which are not so obvious as all that.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.