[Geany-devel] solved (Re: Geany-Plugins: SVN-URL on git)

[Frank Lanitz]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 11:26:41 -0800
Matthew Brush <mbrush at codebrainz.ca> wrote:

> On 11-12-04 06:09 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I didn't found the conclusion on the discussion: What was the
> > outcome on this topic? Which reference to old svn shall be inserted
> > into git repo?
> >
> 
> The conclusion is that the SVN-URL in the commit message is a valid
> SVN URL to checkout that commit, so is fine.  My complaint was that
> it was a broken URL that didn't work, but I didn't realize it was not
> a web-browser link, it's a link to work with SVN client.
> 
> First I mentioned it in the original thread:
> 
> **** FROM OTHER THREAD ****
> On 11-11-04 04:03 PM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
>  > Le 04/11/2011 23:28, Jiří Techet a écrit :
>  >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 03:18, Matthew Brush wrote:
>  >> OK, thanks. So is there any "official" conclusion which format
>  >> should be used? (I don't have any strong preference here.)
>  >
>  > I'd personally prefer to have a valid SVN URL rather than a valid
>  > HTTP link, but again, I don't mind much.
>  >
> 
> Thanks for pointing out now *after* so much time and discussion that
> the existing URL *was a valid SVN URL*.  I'm glad I wasted my time :)
> </sarcasm>
> 
> @Jiri
> I'd say it's your call, in light of this new information, I'd say
> leave it as is and get it done as soon as you have time (assuming no
> one else objects).
> **** END FROM OTHER THREAD ***
> 
> And then I clarified in your later thread since probably you didn't
> read the first thread and mentioned it still being an open issue:
> 
> **** FROM OTHER THREAD ****
> On 11/15/2011 08:55 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
>  > Hi developers,
>  >
>  > It has been a while when I first announced a mail about my idea of
>  > process after transition of geany-plugins repository. As from my
>  > understand the only open point is to have clarified the
>  > svn-url-reference question its a good point to tell you what I'm
>  > thinking of.
>  >
> 
> The point is closed, see the thread, apologies for not making that
> clear enough. IIUC it's basically just a matter of someone pushing
> the repo unless people have committed to SVN in the meantime I guess
> it needs to be re-processed....
> **** END FROM OTHER THREAD ***
> 
> I guess this could be a third time that I can say it *THERE ARE NO 
> PENDING ISSUES, PLEASE PUSH THE PLUGINS TO GIT ALREADY!*  :)

Due to a lot of prosa I didn't found this. 

We will take original sf links. 

Cheers, 
Frank
-- 
http://frank.uvena.de/en/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20111204/3a1f4dfa/attachment.pgp>