[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: Ralf Hemmecke
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Which source distributions should we list?
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:25:47 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20070326)

3. Silver is moving from arch to Git ....

There is no need to be concerned because silver is also available
in SVN format on sourceforge.

And as I understand correctly,

Silver (or silver mirror) = Sourceforge:branches/daly

On sourceforge we have now


In order to reduce confusion shouldn't we just remove sourceforge:silver? It was created by Bill as a mirror of the tla archive axiom--silver--1 at Since Tim now maintains Silver on git, the tla archive and the sf:silver directory should go away. Bill, could you do this?

4. About the testing branches listed for GNU Arch....

As far as I know there was no work on those branches that did not
get merged into Gold. Those branches are dead.

What about removing them from the AxiomSources page?

5. The subversion branches I assume are all still active ....

Build-improvements and wh-sandbox are clearly active. Hersen-algebra-improvements might or might not be.

Cliff, just update AxiomSources. If I think it is not the way I like it, I will modify it. And if it clashes with your opinion we will certainly agree on something.

6. Darcs and Mercurial obviously will stay.....

Bill likes these tools so clearly they won't go away.

There is no need to agonize over the various choices. The choice
of source code control depends on your style of working. Choose
one, work with it. Post your diff-Naur changesets. Since this is
a common format that works with everything we can all apply the
changes to our own repositories.

To be honest, I don't like diff-Naur, if I have a SCM at hand. It sounds like washing the dishes by hand though you have a dishwasher.


reply via email to

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