Mark Phippard wrote:
>>If you could do your initial commit a way that it is still possible to
>>run diff against your initial baseline (branches/1.1.x), that would be
>>nice. So you could copy clean /branches/1.1.x -> /branches/ebcdic/1.1.x
>>check out /branches/ebcdic/1.1.x and copy all your own stuff over it,
>>remove/add as necessary, and then commit. Perhaps you had planned it
>>this way already.
>>
>>I am fine with one big commit, with quite rough log message,
>>i.e. "Initial ebcdic commit" =)
>>
>>
>
>I plan on committing this on Monday. We were just waiting for the 1.1.4
>tag. Not to complicate things any further, but I have been thinking.
>Would it make more sense to go with /branches/os400 then /branches/ebcdic?
>
>This is really an os400 port. It just so happens that dealing with EBCDIC
>issues are 90% of the issues. That could change over time as IBM has been
>doing more and more to offer UTF-8 as an option. Our interest will always
>be to make this run best under OS/400.
>
>I have been working with OS/400 since 1991, I am not even sure what other
>EBCDIC platforms still exist. I think the old IBM mainframe OS is EBCDIC,
>but is Apache and APR ported to it? I am not aware of any others.
>
>It doesn't really matter to me. I just do not want to create confusion as
>to what the goal of this port is. It is not to make Subversion deal with
>EBCDIC, it is to make it run well on OS/400.
>
>
It seems to me that, if 90% of the changes are EBCDIC, then as far as
SVN is concerned, the changes for OS/400 support are incidental. :)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 2 21:06:40 2005