is the SVN version of bmax offline?
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Programming/is the SVN version of bmax offline?
| ||
| I tried to update and was offline. Was it also hijacked? |
| ||
| http://blitzmax.com/Community/posts.php?topic=83395 :-) |
| ||
| http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=83458#941558 Unfortunately, the BRL subversion server will be down for the foreseeable future due to security issues. There will be a new 'big' release of BlitzMax within a few weeks time, and after that we will probably stick to simple big releases only for BlitzMax So... Sounds like it's gone. Too bad, really.... although Brucey also has a ton of interesting things coming out over SVN, so it's worth keeping it around. |
| ||
| Thanks for the info guys. I am so disapointed, I was getting so used to the updates that way. |
| ||
| Yeah. It will be a shame seeing it go. |
| ||
| I am so disapointed Yeah, certainly killing the glow, isn't it? So big (?) updates once every 10 months or so? great. Any chance of an explanation behind this? I don't understand how the svn had security issues, and even if so, why couldn't it be run parallel to the blitzmax site server? Just (common sense) food for thought. I never had a problem adapting to svn, but for those that had, i'm sure they aren't pleased they had to go through the transition right when it was spat back in their face. Oh well. |
| ||
| It would be nice if BRL gave us at least an 'unofficial' package of everything that was on SVN the day that it died. Having no SVN at the moment also means that we cannot get Threading support and all other fancy stuff that only existed in SVN. I'm going to have to do a lot in Windows in the next time and wanted to have BlitzMax in my Windows setup, but now I can only have an old version. |
| ||
| I'm going to miss SVN too. |
| ||
| People were in tears cowering in fear because of SVN, saying how horrible Mark was for using it. Now that he has ditched it and given the crybabies what they were asking for, now people are crying because its gone. |
| ||
| GaryV, yes, but it's always different people that are crying for different reasons. ;-) |
| ||
| GaryV wrote: People were in tears cowering in fear because of SVN, saying how horrible Mark was for using it. Now that he has ditched it and given the crybabies what they were asking for, now people are crying because its gone. That's probably only because some people liked it and others didn't. I don't think there has been a huge turn around of attitudes. It's just that 'nah sayers' are usually more vocal.Edit: Looks like Winni beat me to the post button. |
| ||
| I remember Mr Sibly saying he preferred svn to syncmods so there must be a good reason to be dropping it. I wonder what this weakness in svn is and whether there is a more secure version control system. |
| ||
| I prefered the download, unzip and update method of old... Though SVN grew on me a little.. But either way, as long as Mark is still producing updates and releases them... I couldnt care less how he decides to package them up. So there!!! :P *Insert raspberry here* Dabz |
| ||
| The only thing I disliked about the non SVN updates is that we would get them up to months later than mentioned While SVN updates where practically there every month. Well, almost everytime I checked. If a bug was found in an update, a fix could be downloaded within a day or two while otherwise we have to wait until an update is released. To GaryV: And that is why we are not robots or machines "yet". I am shure you are happy in monotonous job doing the same thing everyday doing what the "master" tells you. We don't all think alike and that is what makes this life a "life". Everyone has an opinion and thos who voice it out create change. Those who don't, go through life wishing they did. |
| ||
| People were in tears cowering in fear because of SVN, saying how horrible Mark was for using it. And these people didn't know what they were talking about, since updates (1.30) were still released in package form. It was simply a method of getting the latest changes, stable or not (such as small fixes/changes to threading). Those people were just ignorant/oblivious to the whole point of the svn. died. Having no SVN at the moment also means that we cannot get Threading support and all other fancy stuff that only existed in SVN ^ As such, some of our rants aren't just complaints for the sake of complaining - there's an obvious (only to some apparently) disadvantage to no longer having this available. |
| ||
| there's an obvious ... disadvantage to no longer having this available. Yes, it's very sad. An open repository is an incentive to provide improvements. As it stands now, I doubt I'll be in a hurry to tweak much in the near future. |
| ||
| Why not just bring Syncmods back and be done with it? It was simple, and it worked. Nothing against SVN but it was quite a bit of unnecessary fannying about for the same end result. Somebody somewhere is saying "if it aint broke, fix it until it is". :/ |
| ||
| But it was broke(n). Right from day one there were always a small number of people who simply could not connect to Syncmods. I can't imagine that Mark much enjoyed having to manually send out files to people who couldn't update. |
| ||
| Right from day one there were always a small number of people who simply could not connect to Syncmods But there's a far greater number of people who couldn't [be bothered to] get their head around SVN?The only time I had trouble with Syncmods, was when trying to use it in Vista with UAC on. |
| ||
| Maybe syncmods has the same security weakness that svn has. I guess that Mr Sibly is dropping svn either to protect the BMax source or to close a "backdoor" that hackers can/did exploit. |
| ||
| As it stands now, I doubt I'll be in a hurry to tweak much in the near future. /poll-with-no-pull for brucey being given root access. Why not just bring Syncmods back and be done with it? I imagine syncmods wasn't as automatically managed as the svn. I have to ask though, since you have been around blitz a heck of a lot longer than me - wasn't syncmods just a way to get the larger updated files for blitzmax? Comparing to svn, where you get an update for every little change? Again though, i'm not sure on that...but that was my impression when I used it. Svn seemed to have updates a lot more often for every minor change, as where the syncmod appeared to be more manually updated when there were several changes. How was the security issue due to svn anyhow? If that was the case, googlecode, sourceforge...(etc) would not support what it does =p It's a conspiracy! |
| ||
| Syncmods also had the small incremental updates / minor fixes for Blitzmax that came out between majore releases. The big difference between syncmods and SVN was that under Syncmods, they used to distribute all the -compiled- libraries and changes, not just the sourcecode. One of the big reasons that BRL switched to SVN was supposedly the hassle and time consuming of having to generate the binaries for windows / intel mac / ppc mac / linux for each little tweak and keeping it all in sync. SVN is easier to integrate the incremental syncrhonizations when people are running different versions of the program, plus since they switched to just source code there no longer was the time consuming need to recompile all changes four times on different platforms. Perhaps a compromise would work: bring back (a variation of) syncmods, but still require people to compile the resulting files themselves with MinGW? |
| ||
| /poll-with-no-pull for brucey being given root access. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but it's not a democracy here, but BRL's own playground with its own rules. |
| ||
| Notice the 'no-pull' joke? You did quote it =p Thinking about it as a reality though, it would probobly be more professional had brucey been given access a long time ago. He spends more time adding to blitzmax than anyone by a long shot; moreso then mark himself it would appear - and more community driven updates rather then personal afflictions. But you're right, it isn't a democracy, so yes it is totally up to mark to leave that extra weight on his and the communities shoulders if that's what he really wants. As far as developing goes, i've always failed to see the end-result advantage to working by yourself, compared to working with people (who volunteer freely toboot). edit: sorry brucey =p |
| ||
| ... moving along then... |
| ||
| Shame SVN is gone, now my Mac side is the only one with threading support. Going to have to see about pulling some stuff off my old laptop now, even if it's something like 3 months old. Hopefully the compiler didn't change too much between now and then. On the upside, maybe we'll see a switch to a system like git. In fact, I really should have cloned the entire repo when I had the chance... |
| ||
| Retimer, sorry, no, I didn't catch the joke. Sometimes it's difficult for non-native speakers to catch all the nuances. But although I made this remark, I generally share your opinion -- a more community driven approach would be beneficial for everybody. Nilium: Yes, we all should have cloned the repository while we had the chance. I always postponed copying the Windows stuff because I didn't really need it. But even if some of us had the full repositories at hand, it's not doing the rest of us any good because we cannot legally share it. We have to wait for whatever BRL are planning to do and give us. |
| ||
| How about just rewriting all the BRL modules with an open-source license? Edit: Although I suppose in rewriting Brl.Blitz, at least, there's no good way to go about it without it ending up the exact same as it is now, which would probably make it legally questionable. |
| ||
| Hm, it depends. There shouldn't be an issue if you use the "clean house" approach: One team analyzes the source code and hands over a specification to the second team that implements the features. The point is that the people writing the new code don't know - and preferably have never seen - the original code. This is what the Mono team does. |
   |