[Biococoa-dev] Re: Subversion proposal
peter.schols at bio.kuleuven.be
Tue Mar 7 04:48:33 EST 2006
Hi Charles and other listers,
We are getting there indeed! Your paragraph below summarizes exactly
what I had in mind. Both ways are very similar indeed, and from the
point of view of the "user" your approach might be better because the
tag will only contain the relevant code (while with my approach it
would contain all trunk code).
So, I'll move the code Alex has written to a folder called 1.7 inside
the Tags folder and remove it from the trunk. Does everyone agree on
It still feels a bit strange, but given the schizophrenic nature of
BioCocoa, this will be the best indeed. I hope we can quickly have
our own code use our own foundation classes and move it all to the
If I don't hear any indications against this approach, I'll create
the repository later today, so we can all start working on the code ;-)
Regarding the website: I agree it needs a major treatment, and I'm
willing to do this, but I'm afraid it won't be before the end of the
month. Orbicule takes away too much of my time right now....
If anyone thinks it should be done sooner, feel free to do so. You
have "carte blanche".
> Totally agree: it should be in the trunk too and made compatible
> with the rest of BioCocoa 2.0. So, maybe, what you are thinking
> about is: add the unmodified code to the trunk, take a snapshot for
> the Tags, and then start working on it as part of 2.0. If this is
> what you nhave in mind, it is exactly what I think too, except I
> put it the other way around: make a 1.7 tag to check-in the code,
> and then copy that code in the trunk to work on it. The end result
> is the same, so either way is good. Again, I just wanted to make
> sure we have a place in the repository with unmodified alex's code,
> and the Tags seems like the right place.
> I am so sorry I seem to be making things so complicated!
> Help science move fast forward:
> Charles Parnot
> charles.parnot at gmail.com
More information about the Biococoa-dev