[chuck-dev] ChucK GitHub

[mike clemow]

I'll throw my hat in the ring for for git.

I'm wondering how many users have personal changes to the main ChucK
branch...  I've dabbled in this realm before, but I'm curious what other
changes people have made.

//mike

http://michaelclemow.com
http://semiotech.org




On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Ricardo Fabbri <rfabbri at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to Git.
>
> Ricardo Fabbri
> --
> Linux registered user #175401
> www.lems.brown.edu/~rfabbri
> pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPRJ
> labmacambira.sf.net
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Stephen Sinclair <radarsat1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I had tried doing that quite a long time ago ;)
> >
> > http://repo.or.cz/w/chuck-blob.git
> >
> > But lost interest in keeping it up to date.. I hope you have more
> > luck!  Personally I think the project would benefit greatly by moving
> > completely to git.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Colin Sullivan <colinsul at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I am in support of this idea, but I think it may be a better idea to
> keep
> >> the "master" branch representative of the official ChucK "trunk", and
> keep
> >> any other commits in other branches until they are merged into ChucK
> >> "officially".
> >>
> >> Just my two cents.
> >> ----------
> >> Colin Sullivan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Remi Gillig <remigillig at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello all,
> >>>
> >>> It's not that I don't like SVN but there are cool alternatives for
> >>> open source projects now. So I put ChucK on GitHub, I dream that you
> >>> would adopt this for future commits. The biggest advantage is the
> >>> "fork + pull" mechanic where someone can fork a project, do some
> >>> fixes, modifications, additions etc. and you can pull his changes into
> >>> the original repository. I know changing SCM is a big change in a
> >>> project but I had to go the mailing list archives to find the SVN URL
> >>> and I would love to see more contributions to ChucK.
> >>>
> >>> Also a big change in many projects, is the change for the build
> >>> system. For Windows, the platform I'm originally interested in, I saw
> >>> that there were Visual 6 projects which is quite outdated. For the
> >>> benefit of everyone, I made a preliminary CMake build file which can
> >>> right now build ChucK on Visual Studio 2010 for example. CMake is a
> >>> bit like make but can generate projects for a number of platforms.
> >>>
> >>> So, to summarize, I imported the SVN repository (revision 93) into
> >>> GitHub at this address : https://github.com/speps/chuck
> >>> My changes are already there, some minor fixes so that it builds on
> >>> Windows (without HID, DirectInput support was outdated, without OTF
> >>> server too. I did not want to be asked about Windows firewall for
> >>> ChucK). These options should be CMake options if anyone is up for it.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, I hope to hear from the developers community about a possible
> >>> switch over to GitHub which would be great for ChucK (I had to go the
> >>> mailing lists to realize that the latest version from the home page
> >>> dates from around 2009).
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Remi Gillig.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> chuck-dev mailing list
> >>> chuck-dev at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> >>> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> chuck-dev mailing list
> >> chuck-dev at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> >> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-dev
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > chuck-dev mailing list
> > chuck-dev at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> > https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-dev
> _______________________________________________
> chuck-dev mailing list
> chuck-dev at lists.cs.princeton.edu
> https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-dev/attachments/20120203/5924e4b9/attachment.html>