On 20 March 2011 20:33, Matthew Fulmer <tapplek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:26:20AM -0700, Eliot Miranda wrote:
Except that its my branch and I've been using oscog from the start. Â Igor had no need to use the same name line as me. Â I don't want to change now. Â oscog refers to my branch of VMMaker for "open source Cog".
It's not really open source if nobody else can contribute to that branch. Squeaksource apparently allows versions to be overwritten. I didn't know that either. Maybe that's part of the reason the naming convention has been adopted: Package-author.version
The best supported convention for maintaining a branch is to use a different repository. MC is distributed, so packages can be merged between repositories no problem.
So http://squeaksource.com/VMMaker/VMMaker-IgorStasenko.53.mcz would be a trunk commit, and http://squeaksource.com/OSCog/VMMaker-IgorStasenko.54.mcz would be a cog commit.
Changing the package name is not really supported; Most MC implementations can't merge between packages (MC1.5 could, but I havn't ported that to any MC that's actually in use)
I like seperate repositories better anyway; then you can know if there is a newer version of your branch available just by seeing if VMMaker package is bold in the repo browser; if they are in the same repository, you have to pay attention to the commits
I agree that having different repos could simplify things. Except things which will otherwise complicate them: - publishing new VMMaker version sends nice email to mailing list - configuration(s) to automatically load VMMaker with all dependencies relying on having VMMaker package at certain known location, not at multiple ones. So, lets keep pushing to SqS/VMMaker but use different naming scheme.
-- Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.