On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 11:16:02PM -0500, Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
First, my sincere thanks to the Inkscape developers. You've developed a remarkable program in a very short time. The future ubiquity of SVG on several platforms owes a huge debt of gratitude to Inkscape and the people behind it.
:-)
I noted the recent concern about which versions of various libraries (gtkmm, etc.) Inkscape should target for maximum benefit. See "newest gtkmm needed to compile HEAD" and "train wreck...") As a Gentoo user (i.e. self-imposer of trainwrecks), I periodically compile Inkscape-cvs against very recent gtk gtkmm, cairo etc. Anything older than the latest Ubuntu seems positively fossilized to my biased point of view.
I think a number of us use gentoo/ubuntu/debian (I'm a gentoo user myself), so right there with ya. :-) But based on our experiences in the past when we've changed dependencies, there are still a lot of people who use legacy distros (even rpm-based ones) that will speak up if we change too aggressively. Not that this is bad, but it just jacks up the noise level on the list and the bug tracker for a while. ;-)
When I see mention of various cool features that developers have running in a private sandbox, I think it speaks to Inkscape's extreme need for a source repository that provides better support for branching and merging. I think Inkscape needs to migrate its source to subversion.
You're right, we should migrate to Subversion.
Would you be willing to help us in this by porting our CVS documentation to what its equivalent would be for svn?
(Obviously, this still leaves open the question of who could provide us with subversion hosting, but it'd be one less hurdle for us.)
Bryce