Author |
Message |
radarsat1
Joined: Mar 14, 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Montreal
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 9:25 am Post subject:
blob edition |
|
|
So, thinking about how to set up a community-driven "blob" edition of ChucK.
I've been looking for the right hosting service. My criteria were:
- supports git
- allows a small web page
- hosts file releases (for builds)
- allows posting of larger files on the web page (for nightly builds)
- allows easy contributions by a "mob"
So I think sourceforge is out of the question as they don't support git. I don't really want to use Google Code since I'd rather have the ability to make a nice little web site for it. I already have an account on gitorious, but they don't have any way to publish file releases. Same goes for github.
I think the choices have come down to either berlios.de or nongnu.org. Both seem pretty good.
For the last requirement, git.or.cz offers a "mob branch" service which lets anyone push changes to a specific branch of the repository. I like this idea, I wish it were offered by one of the two services above. But if it comes down to maintaining two repositories that's not all bad, since it's not too hard with git to maintain a mirror. I could also try to maintain a CVS or SVN mirror--that might be a bit more difficult, but might encourage more people to pitch in who would be scared off by git.
Here's how I would do the branches:
- "mob" branch (hosted on git.or.cz) is pushable by anyone
- an "upstream" branch which is synchronized with ChucK's anonymous CVS.
- a few topic branches for specific topics like, "fixing 64-bit support" or "experimenting with VM changes". Topic branches would be maintained on top of upstream.
- a few ugen branches, with commits on top of upstream for adding new ugens or ugen libraries.
- a "master" branch which combines any topic branches that are deemed ready for general consumption. this is the "blob" edition, we'll make it clear that it's not the official chuck.
builds of master would be made downloadable, but in the topic/ugen branches everything should be kept at all times easily merged into upstream in small pieces so that they can trickle down to the main ChucK CVS. the point here is to have a place to experiment collaboratively; not to replace ChucK, but to create changes and new features that Ge might integrate if deemed worthy.
thoughts? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004 Posts: 7678 Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:18 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I think it looks great. I feel that on a "social level" this is totally great and looks good like this. The technological stuff with version tracking here I'm not qualified to comment on, I trust your judgement here and once it's there I'll try to learn how to use whatever you think is the best way to do it.
Considering the highly distributed nature of this plan I think it might be best to pick a versioning system that's relatively easy to use for people who know just enough about C++ to combine your tutorial with the outcome of a CK-based prototyping process to create a working UGen. Of course it would also need to be manageable for you to sort the rough from the polished. If this is like that then I think it's what we need. _________________ Kassen |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
radarsat1
Joined: Mar 14, 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Montreal
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Kassen wrote: | Considering the highly distributed nature of this plan I think it might be best to pick a versioning system that's relatively easy to use for people who know just enough about C++ to combine your tutorial with the outcome of a CK-based prototyping process to create a working UGen. Of course it would also need to be manageable for you to sort the rough from the polished. If this is like that then I think it's what we need. |
yeah for sure, I'm trying to keep that in mind. I'm going to investigate the level of difficulty in maintaining a cvs or svn mirror just for the sake of people not willing to learn git. But the git part is important to help maintain a set of patches that can be easily applied upstream.
I'll try to do a little more testing before making any concrete decisions. At the very least people will be able to send patches over a dedicated mailing list, so even if version control doesn't come into the picture there is still that. On the other hand, anyone doing any kind of development, particularly C++ but even just writing ChucK code, will benefit from learning a version control system so I hope people aren't too scared of it. I know it can be a deterrent unfortunately but it's also a necessity, and really really useful; once you get used to it you won't go back. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004 Posts: 7678 Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Sounds very good, sensible and practical.
Thanks for going over all this, you're a hero. _________________ Kassen |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
rogan
Joined: Dec 16, 2007 Posts: 83 Location: Urbana, IL
Audio files: 5
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Hey, this sounds great! I hadn't heard about git before, but if it's good enough for the linux kernel and X, then it's good enough for me. Count me in. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
radarsat1
Joined: Mar 14, 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Montreal
|
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:38 am Post subject:
|
|
|
i tried mirroring my chuck git repo to an svn repo locally, just to see how that would work. it "kinda" works, but it seems like it might be a pain in the ass. and anyway, no one would be able to commit using it, so it might be pointless. (except that it makes patch create a little easier)
it's probably better to just have people either using git or just working off of tarballs and submitting patches that way. they can also submit patches off of the chuck CVS, since all topic branches will be based off of upstream.
i don't expect hoards of people to jump on this anyways, so i think anyone who's really interested will be able to manage. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Avshalom
Joined: Jan 17, 2009 Posts: 1 Location: New Mexico
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:29 am Post subject:
|
|
|
if any one is interested in this still might want to look into http://github.com/ |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
radarsat1
Joined: Mar 14, 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Montreal
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
i haven't had time to do any chuck stuff lately, but i've already got a git clone of the CVS repo up here:
http://repo.or.cz/w/chuck-blob.git
(may not be up to date.. I need to work on a synchronizing script) |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Stochastic
Joined: Feb 25, 2008 Posts: 45 Location: Vancouver
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:05 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes, Yes, Yes!
Hopefully this can be done, it'd be great to get dirty with some of ChucK's innards in an attempt to improve it. That current git repo does look substantially out-of-date (6months or so).
Allowing a mob contribution could truly aid ChucK's growth IMHO. _________________ http://greyrock.blogspot.com |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
radarsat1
Joined: Mar 14, 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Montreal
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
As far as i can tell the last commit to the chuck CVS is October last year. Unless they've switched repos internally there seems to be no activity. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|