[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Axiom Wiki FrontPage re-design

From: Ralf Hemmecke
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Axiom Wiki FrontPage re-design
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:35:02 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.4 (X11/20050908)

root wrote:
Call me old-fashioned, but in order to edit pamphlet files, I would get the arch-sources and do something locally and then submit. Only for small changes the web-access to the sources makes sense to me. Anyway, it is not quite clear to me how modifications to the sources made over the web will eventually find their way into axiom--main. Will Tim incorporate them by hand? I guess the ChangeSet idea becomes a bit blurred here.

ok. you're old-fashioned. but so am i so it's a bit of a struggle to
think thru the idea of hacking real sources on a website. however
bill has a good idea with this wiki site and he's managed to get
the sources online and automatically generated.

I am not at all against Bill's work. It's great. It's just that I am usually offline when I find time to work on Axiom. So my main source of information is the pamphlet file in the source tree.

since the website maintains a changelog/undo facility many people can
work on their local copy (a DOYEN with a browser?) and transparently
move to the wiki.

using the wiki this way for math could be VERY cool. suppose you find
that a certain function does not compute a result. what would it take
to click on the function and be taken to it's definition (note that this requires tight cooperation with axiom since there are hundreds
of functions with the same name but different type signatures). and
once you've found the definition you study it for a while, write some
comments about what failed, come back in a few days with a solution,
type in the solution (and document it), remake axiom, go back to the
sandbox and test it. if it works you "promote" it to the reviewers
for inclusion into the "approved" source tree.

Oh, there exists an "approved" tree. After reading a bit in the documentation of GNU arch, I was always wondering whether there still is ONE tree that should somehow be considered as the ORIGINAL or APPROVED. I guess, Tim, maintains that archive.

each user could have their own branch of axiom.

Fine for me.

of course, this will cause major "mainline" headaches for the "approved"
source tree but that's hardly the experimenter's problem.

Good to get these top-level ideas transmitted.

But I somehow would like to see a bit more plans. Of course anyone could do anything, but without some kind of given direction much work could be in vain. So I'd like to discuss before I program.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]