[TxMt] BundleForge: time to start?

[Rob McBroom]

On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:52 AM, thomas Aylott wrote:

> Agreed.
> How do you suppose such a thing should work?

I like that it's Subversion based now. I ask myself: What do we want  
that we don't currently have?

The main thing that comes to mind (which was recently discussed on  
this list) is some sort of description and/or documentation for each  
available bundle. I also would advocate some additional meta-data on  
top of that. For example, it would be nice to have attributes that  
allow you to see…

   * Bundles that are considered obsolete
   * Bundles that the developer considers to be a work in progress  
and possibly
     not ready for prime time. "BETA", for lack of a better word.
   * Bundles that are included with TextMate by default (and of  
these, perhaps
     even show which have been updated since the last TextMate  
release?).

It might also be nice to know who "works on" each bundle, but I'm  
wondering if we should purposely not make that information available  
to those without "commit" access. The reason being that if you don't  
know who does a particular bundle and are forced to take your  
question to the entire list, there are a lot more eyes on the problem  
and we'll probably end up with a more elegant solution in the end.

I realize there a folks with an aversion to Subversion :), so should  
we do something to accommodate them or make them get with the  
program? I was thinking we could have a post-commit hook that would  
tar up a working copy of each bundle as it's updated. And maybe we  
strip out the `.svn` directories first or maybe we don't. Seems to me  
that if it's checked out a certain way and we leave the `.svn` dirs  
in place, the person who downloads the tarball version could run `svn  
update` on it at some later point if they wanted to. This would of  
course be unrealistic if we stick with one huge repository for  
everything (see below).

I'd be curious to hear what those with commit access think is missing.

> I like how the official repo is a single svn server.
> But if bundleForge is only a single repo, then everyone has access  
> to all of of the bundles.

 From what I know of Subversion, a single server with multiple  
repositories could be "transparent" to all the clients doing  
checkouts, but it could be an access control nightmare depending on  
how fine-grained you want to make it. Is there a reason that there's  
currently only one repository?

---
Rob McBroom
<http://www.skurfer.com/>
I didn't "switch" to Apple... my OS did.