[crossfire] CVS -> SVN conversion

[Mark Wedel]

Alex Schultz wrote:
> Tchize <tchize at ...> writes:
>> Crossfire gtk client 2.1.0 (/branches/XYZW/client revision 1234)
>> Branch name is important to include in bug report as well as revision
>> number
> This seems like a good idea to me. A couple notes though:
> -I think version number should have "-dev" appended if it's from svn, only 
> removed for releases.

  I'm not sure if that is really necessary.  From the global revision number, 
you can sort of know the status.

  But this may be more an issue for how the branches are handled.  What I'd 
probably say is something like this:

  When a release is made, a branch is done.  In that branch, the version would 
be changed to match the release (1.10, 1.11, etc).

  In the main branch (rel-1-x), the version gets updated to be something like 
1.10-CVS, 1.11-CVS, etc, to denote that portion is CVS.

  That is basically what you are saying, just clarifies how it is done.  It is 
also completely possible that what is in main branch of CVS is same as last release.

  EG, if a release is done, with the branch, and the tag is updated in the main 
head, and you do a checkout, it will still say 1.11-CVS, even though there are 
no practical changes of it from the release.  But that is probably fine.

> -If it's from the trunk branch, probably would be good to make the message just 
> like:
> Crossfire gtk client 2.1.0-dev (trunk revision 1234)
> as opposed to including the full branch path.
> -If it's from an unofficial (not on sf.net) branch, it should make the message 
> like:
> Crossfire gtk client 2.1.0-dev (http://foo.bar.baz/svnroot/crossfire revision 
> 1234)
> using the full path/url to the svn repository in place of "branches/XYZW/client"

  svn has a HeadURL property.  It doesn't distinguish what the URL is.

  I think it is reasonable to use that. That way, when brances are done, it is 
automatically up to date.

  And of course, if someone makes a branch outside of sourceforge, at that time, 
it is sort of out of our control.  However, if we use the SVN properly for 
HeadURL, unless the person doing that branch intentionally changes/resets 
something, it should get updated properly.

> -Would it be a good idea to also put support for some other version control 
> systems in the script to make the revision strings? I think it would be a good 
> idea if it isn't too difficult, because making local branches of an svn 
> repository can be easy with svk and bzr-svn, both of which can pull and push 
> with normal svn repositories.

  This isn't a script we are using, but rather built in feature of the svn 
server.  I don't believe it is possible for us to add server side SVN scripts 
(sourceforge limits that), and client side scripts are sure to have issues (some 
people don't have the scripts, etc), unless the script is part of the SVN 
repository itself.