[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Axiom-developer] Preferred SCM

From: Ralf Hemmecke
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Preferred SCM
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:35:14 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201)

I hope Axiom stays with GNU arch. In particular, in the future we could more and more exploit the "multiple archives" feature and the "star-merge".

I am relatively new to Arch, but after reading about it and about Subversion. I think GNU Arch is more powerful even if it lacks nice GUIs. (BTW there is xtla for emacs -- unfortunately I haven't had time to install it properly.)

I particular "star-merge" sounded quite nice to me. (And that is missing in SVN.)

In fact development could work like that:
Tim is maintaining the "official" Axiom sources and only he has write access to it (but anyone can read it). Everyone could open up his own archive, ie just branch from the latest official (axiom--main--1) version (for example axiom--myfeature--1.0) and develop into that archive until some feature has been completed. If in the meantime, axiom--main--1 got another patch, it would be easy to integrate that into axiom--myfeature--1.0. Finally send a mail to Tim and tell him the place of the archive. Tim (or maybe in the future any other group of reviewers) could check the new feature and integrate that into axiom--main--1 by just calling
star-merge, see


PS: If time permits, I'll add some section into volume 4 "Developer's Guide".

On 02/05/2006 08:21 AM, root wrote:
The primary sources are maintained under arch due to the availability
of "changesets".

The secondary sources (at sourceforge and savannah) are under CVS
because that's the available system.

The wiki sources are maintained under darcs.

The reasons are historical. There was a bit of debate about using
changesets instead of CVS. SVN was not available at the time. Arch
was the front-runner and had some of the features of bitkeeper.
We considered using bitkeeper but that's a commercial product.

It still is not clear to me which system is optimal. Arch is powerful
but we only use the changeset feature. Darcs is easy but not as powerful
as Arch. CVS is universal but lacks changesets. SVN combines some of
these features. ... and then there is 'git' which I've recently experimented with.

Generally the axiom sources are posted in arch, savannah, and sourceforge
within 24 hours of each other so they should be identical. Thus you can
use either arch or cvs.


Axiom-developer mailing list

reply via email to

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