[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Axiom-developer] RE: gcl-2.6.8pre on MAC OSX 10.2

From: Gabriel Dos Reis
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] RE: gcl-2.6.8pre on MAC OSX 10.2
Date: 03 Nov 2006 17:34:22 +0100

"Bill Page" <address@hidden> writes:


| > Thanks Ralf.
| > 
| > Clearly I, too, am confused about this whole replictor
| > business.
| > 
| > If we can manage to be confused about which is which at
| > this point, then clearly something is wrong.
| Surely you are imagining confusion where this is nothing
| but the usual complications... ;)

I have managed to think I knew what the state was, then get told it
wasn't, then get told what I was told wasn't wasn't.  That happened
for real; it is not imaginary.

| > A week ago, I received private communications about
| > decreasing the number of "master" repos -- because it
| > just is too confusing.  I suspect this is another strong
| > evidence to support the claim.
| As far as I am concerned, private communications on this
| issue don't exist. Why private?

Different people act differently.  Some prefer courteous private
communication, others prefer public vocalization.  I have no trouble
with that.

| > Now, I'm really confused about what we said we will do
| > (and we are not doing), what are doing (and we should
| > not be doing), and what we should be doing (and are not
| > doing).
| I hope this email helps solve your problem. Really this
| is not so complicated.
| > 
| > As I have stated publicly, I'm not a big fan of "forks".
| > But at this very point I'm considering very seriously
| > about forking and be done with it.
| > 
| If you have an issue about the decision to let Tim Daly manage
| the update of Axiom Silver via his manual updates of his tla
| axiom--silver--1 archive (with auto sync to svn /silver),
| then I think that should be treated separately from the issue
| of the configuration of the source code archives.

I'm very happy to see Tim is making changes more visible now, than waiting
for ages before seeing light. The main reason I originally volunteered to
maintain Silver is that I do believe in "live sources". Tim suggested
at the time that he did not have time do maintain too many branches.
It therefore was a natural thing for me to volunteer to take on the
job.  Now, if Tim has more time to do the job, I'm all for it.

However, I see practical issue here:  

  (1) first, we should not have one single person as authority to
      commit changes.  Every contributor we grant write access should
      commit its own changes to silver/trunk/whatever it is
      called.  That way, we don't have to wait that only a single
      person has time and do the job.

  (2) second, he review should be public, instead of being done in
      private.  This helps people to learn possible obscure cases of
      the system -- instead of the only-one-who-knows has a
      conversation with himself and commit. 
      The changes should be sent to the list instead of Tim.

  (3) third, I'm having diffculty in following the reasoning that,
      most people would develop patches against the SVN repo,
      they will see their patches applied by someone else to a repo
      under a different SCM, and wait a day and then copied back, to
      the SVN repo just to see their changes.  That does not strike me
      as efficient.
      I consider that an extraodinary waste of time and resources.

-- Gaby

reply via email to

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