[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?

From: Marc Andre Tanner
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:36:51 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:32:12PM +0800, KHMan wrote:
> [sorry if this is sent twice, I'm in between switching e-mails]
> Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
> > 2007/10/27, Kein-Hong Man <address@hidden>:
> >> Speaking as a lurker... Now that Mercurial isn't a do-or-die
> >> requirement on the part of the maintainer, is it possible that the
> >> tcc community go back to the official repository? David Wheeler
> >> already has access to it. Lots of CVS/SVN users still get by...
> > 
> > What's wrong with Mercurial?
> The official repository is not Mercurial, I believe. There is no
> reason to continue with another "fork" now, is there? 

Rob will probably maintain his own tree, just not here on this list, he
will set up his own. And as he currently seems to be the only one who 
has the time, interest and knowledge to further improve tcc the offical 
repository will lag even further behind than it already does right now.

> Given a
> choice of (1) starting another Mercurial repository of tcc or (2)
> working with the official repository and aim for a 0.9.24 release,
> as a fairly neutral bystander, I definitely prefer to see the
> latter. It will also make the work of all the package maintainers
> easier, no more ambiguity.

So your volunteering? As far as i can tell David A. Wheeler has access
to the CVS repository but didn't yet commit a single patch while Rob's
tree contains quite a few valueable bugfixes.

> The bigger issue is not which repository to use, it is for someone
> experienced to step up to lead and move the project forward and
> stick to it for some time. 

This is actually what Rob does and i personally will likely stick to his

> Since tcc itself does not have any
> religious issues to stop it from becoming a single entity again,
> an inclusive stance would be nice. The lowest common denominator
> is probably not sexy for some people, but it provides the lowest
> barrier to participation.


 Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0

reply via email to

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