[Rd] [PATCH] Makefile: add support for git svn clones

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 03:44:45PM -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >>>>> git has an interface for cloning SVN repositories into git
> >>>>>  which some users might decide to use. For those users' 
> >>>>> surprise, the repository will always fail to build on
> >>>>> svnonly target and it will exit early.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The problem is simple enough to fix by just checking if a
> >>>>> .git directory exists in top_builddir and, if so, call git
> >>>>> svn info insstead of svn info.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I think we are unlikely to accept this change.  Nobody in R
> >>>> Core uses git this way, so it would never be tested, and
> >>>> would likely soon fail.
> >>> 
> >>> it will be tested by anybody using git svn clone, right ?
> >>> 
> >>>> Indeed, it already fails if someone were to try it on
> >>>> Windows, since you didn't patch the makefiles for that
> >>>> platform.
> >>> 
> >>> yeah, sorry about that, I wasn't aware there were
> >>> windows-specific Makefiles with duplicated logic in the
> >>> repository.
> >>> 
> >>>> The R sources are kept in an SVN repository, and as long as 
> >>>> that's true, we're only likely to support direct SVN access.
> >>> 
> >>> Fair enough. But don't you think it's a bit odd to couple the 
> >>> repository compilation with the availability of a specific SCM 
> >>> tool ?
> >>> 
> >>> I mean, R just won't build unless you have svn info available,
> >>> I think that's pretty odd. Printing a warning would be another
> >>>  possibility, but exitting build is almost an overreaction.
> >> 
> >> That's just false.  Build from a tarball, and you can store it
> >> anyway you like.
> > 
> > I'm talking about the SVN repository. Building from a tarball
> > prevents me from tracking R's revisions, don't you think ? But as I
> > said, if the community doesn't want to support a git svn clone,
> > that's all fine and dandy.
> > 
> 
> So why not make your patch locally, and publish it for any other git
> user to incorporate?  If some change to the master copy breaks it,

heh, that's what I'll have to do of course.

> you'll see it, and you'll fix it.  Then everyone's happy.  One of the
> purported advantages of git is the fact that it doesn't require a

it's not purported, it's a real advantage, but this is not subject of
discussion in this forum

> central repository for everything.

Right, that's all fine, it'll still be an "unofficial" change.

I just thought that such a small patch which causes no visible change to
SVN users and allow for git users to build R would be acceptable, but if
it isn't, that's fine too.

-- 
balbi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/attachments/20150119/00814392/attachment.bin>