[OpendTect_Developers] What is the actual state of the project?

[Júlio Hoffimann]

Hi Bert, hi all,

Sorry if sounded rude :-). I'm trying to contribute.

I did ask about Makeself because is not so common and because sometimes the
researcher/programmer just wants to check the source code of the project to
get familiar. An "INSTALL_NOTES" text file is simple and inhibits an
unwanted installation. Also, there are file permission problems. Anyway, you
told about an installer, this certainly nullifies the discussion for the
binaries in a user point of view :-). But for me and many other programmers,
a *.tar.gz continues to be the better choice for the source code.

No, i meant VCS (Version Control System). CVS is a particular VCS and,
sadly, an anagram too :-). Today, most of the projects are migrating to
distributed VCS's, like Git, Mercury, etc. Some famous are KDE, the recent
LibreOffice created as a community manifestation to Oracle impositions under
OpenOffice.org office suite. Both, KDE and LibreOffice, are now using Git
instead of a centralized VCS (CVS, SVN,...). The main developers has total
control of the project when the VCS is configured correctly. This is why
disasters don't happens and Open Sources projects can grow.

Júlio.

2010/11/2 Bert Bril <bert at opendtect.org>

> Hi all,
>
>
> Júlio wrote:
>
>
> >     * Why Makeself? What is the advantage in use this archiver/scritpt
> >       feature instead of a simple *.tar.gz? Is the first time that i see
> it.
>
> Why not? It seems easier. Don't forget it also starts an installation
> script.
>
> We're well on the way making a real installer/updater program, so that
> will nullify this discussion anyway.
>
>
>
> >     * There is a VCS? Would be great if exists a Git repository to clone
> >       :-) If we have time to improve something, we can send patches to
> you.
>
> Let's just assume you mean CVS. Yes, we use CVS, and the repositories
> are even accessible in read-only mode. At the moment, we only access it
> ourselves. Not sure whether accessing it would be useful though. First
> of all, the CVS repositories are not always in a good state: big changes
> may be in progress. Further, we'll be scared to give others write
> permissions. That could happen, but only after proven code and procedure
> solidness.
>
> Therefore, I'd first just send any new code to us and we can then
> integrate it if all's OK.
>
> The above procedure is not uncommon in Open Source; just letting
> everyone write to CVS repositories is a guarantee for disaster.
>
>
> > The Doxygen documentation is very helpful.
>
> We never use it ourselves. The header files + some powerful search tools
> are a lot better (but maybe we are too much 'power' users already).
>
>
>
> /Bert
>
> --
> -- Bert Bril / OpendTect developer at dGB
> -- mailto:Bert.Bril at opendtect.org , http://opendtect.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opendtect.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20101102/a8d5aba8/attachment.html>