[Bioperl-l] SVN and ...Re: Perltidy
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Fri Jun 15 10:56:23 EDT 2007
On Jun 15, 2007, at 5:07 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>>> Can we do any sort of massive conversion at some logical timepoint.
>>> Probably after a branch release or something? Because it basically
>>> means we're going to have differences on nearly every line which is
>>> going to make diff-ing difficult when debugging old/new versions.
>>> Maybe it is not a problem because we aren't introducing and new
> Sorry, can you clarify the problem you envisage? And why would
> making a branch release help?
Maybe the worry is that mass conversion in such a large codebase
could lead to hard-to-locate bugs. Shouldn't occur but who knows w/o
>> I agree; if we intend on doing this it should be all at once,
>> maybe on a branch dedicated to ensure that code changes don't
>> tank tests (they shouldn't but one never knows). We would then
>> need a script up- and-running that tidies everything up prior to
>> commits (though what happens if perltidy tanks?...).
>> Sendu, up for it?
> If its going to be difficult and a hassle, for such an unnecessary
> thing I'm not sure its worth it. There are more pressing things to
> be done for Bioperl.
> If I can just run perltidy on the entire package and commit, I'd do
> it. If that's not appropriate, I won't.
The choices aren't necessarily all or nothing. What about voluntary,
recommended use of a perltidy config file included with the
distribution, with additional 'caveats'? See my response to Sean.
>>>> About svn
>> Stepped into that one, didn't I! I'll look into how much effort
>> is involved and try getting something going in the next month or
>> two, maybe sooner if time permits. I'm lacking on SVN-foo as
>> well but it might be worth looking into.
> I'd put this in the unnecessary-but-nice category as well. If it
> will be as easy as my ->new change, go ahead. If not, there are
> more pressing matters (POD fixing, test script updating and
A few other open-bio projects have actively discussed a CVS->SVN
migration (BioRuby and I think BioPython, though the latter could be
wrong). As I said, "it might be worth looking into" to weigh the
pros/cons, get others opinions from others who have made the
transition, etc. We could, as Jason suggested, even set up a tester
SVN w/o making it the default codebase (lock it off to a few testers,
have CVS commits automatically/manually carry over to SVN, etc).
I agree with you that it's not feasible to switch over prior to a
release and that there are more pressing issues, but it doesn't hurt
having an open discussion about it.
More information about the Bioperl-l