[Top][All Lists]

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

[Axiom-developer] the repository story (was: build-improvements on cygwi

From: Page, Bill
Subject: [Axiom-developer] the repository story (was: build-improvements on cygwin)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:19:17 -0500

I've changed the subject to better reflect the subject and
omitted Ben from the Cc: list for now since he is probably
not interested in our detailed discussions on this subject.

On Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:12 PM Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Bill Page wrote:
> > To understand my motivation it is important to note that the
> > svn mirror of the silver repository contains the history of
> > the development in arch. While the existing trunk contains
> > only the snapshot history from cvs.
> >
> AFAICS the current 'silver' was created as a big hunk in revision
> 208.  Revisions 209 and 210 added a few changes (there are a few
> other patches, but they reflect changes after cloning form arch)
> -- I would not call this "history".  Certainly 'trunk' contains
> more information.

What I see from the commit emails are my failed attempts to
create 'silver' from revisions 205 to 215, then the real 'silver'
starting from revision 216, 217, and 218. But you are right no
history! :-( I suppose this must be because of the way that Tim
created axiom--silver--1 branch in arch. I had incorrectly assumed
that axiom--silver--1 had the same history as axiom--main--1 (gold)
but never checked until now. That is another mistake I made. Of
course if we had the real history from axiom--main--1 it would
contain at least 50 entrys - one for each patch set.

Now I am inclined to agree with Ben's recommendations in his last
email. I guess we can forget this history. Tim obviously didn't
think it was important anyway. But if we do move entirely from
SourceForge to Google Code are we really prepared to forget our
current history in SVN?

>From my point of view the move to Google Code is motivated because
of extreme problems I continue to have trying to use SVN at
SourceForge. I am still optimistic that things might be easier
at Google Code. Tim had a similar experience. Are we the only
exceptions or do other people have similar problems?

How can we agree on a single host and a single repository system?

> ... 
> I tried to check where disk space go.  After looking at rsynced copy
> of SF repository I see that most space is taken due to following
> revisions:
> 201   80 Mb  failed arcs clone ???
> 208   80 Mb  current 'silver'
> 252
> 219
> 143
> 115
> 102
> 31    each 20Mb -- snapshots of gcl-2.6.8

200-201 and 205-212 where both failed attempts. (I kept getting the
name wrong in the Tailor configuration file.) I finally got it right
in 213-218. Perhaps there are in fact 3 copies of the arch clone?
Or did I somehow manage to rename one and re-use it?

How can I clean-up such mistakes without leaving this mess in the

Do you know the best way of merging 'silver' into 'trunk'? I think
you once compared these versions and said there was really very
little difference. Right?

Are we prepared to cut the automatic connection with Tim's original
axiom--silver--1? I believe Tim stated that he was no longer prepared
to maintain this branch anyway. So I assume "yes".

By 252 to 31 do you mean there are 6 copies of the gcl-2.6.8pre
tarball? I.e. 6 x 20 Mb = 120 Mb.

Bill Page.

reply via email to

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