[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Which source distributions should we list?

From: C Y
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Which source distributions should we list?
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:50:12 -0700 (PDT)

--- address@hidden wrote:
> I believe we should list them all. Each developer has a choice of the
> source code control mechanism that fits his needs and interests. 
> Gaby and Waldek seem to like SVN. Bill likes Darcs. The silver
> uses SVN/git. The main gold version will continue using the ARCH/CVS
> tools.
> The only "end-user visible" systems should be the ARCH/CVS versions.

Erm.  It may be a good thing I didn't change AxiomSources.  I was under
the impression we were going to the following for "official" use:

Silver:  GIT/svn
Gold:  CVS

ARCH, as I understand it, is not really undergoing active development
any more.  I think in such a case we should not encourage active work
in that tool.  If we want an alternative to CVS for Gold and we want to
keep SVN for development only, I would suggest adding a GIT repository
for Gold as well.  (Maybe a branch?)

Darcs and Mercurial can stay put as alternatives - Bill is syncing them
to something and they are actively developed tools.  ARCH, however,
seems to have become a bit of a dead end unless I am behind the times. 
Can we at least make a tiered structure:

Tier1:  As above.  The default "public face" for Axiom sources.
Tier2:  "Alternative" methods.  Darcs, Mercurial, etc.
Tier3:  The "archive" page, listing all branches and systems tried with
Axiom.  If anyone gets that far, presumably they know what they are


 Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay 
it on us. 

reply via email to

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