[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?

From: KHMan
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Newer tinycc repository?
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:14:16 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4

Ivo wrote:
> On Saturday 27 October 2007 11:36, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:32:12PM +0800, KHMan wrote:
>>> 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.
> I don't think he will keep maintaining his own tree. He took his repo 
> offline and abandoned the whole idea of improving tcc up to the point it 
> can compile a basic Linux setup (kernel+uclibc+busybox). Looks like he's 
> moving on to the recently resurrected pcc (the old 7th Edition Unix 
> compiler from the seventies).

To answer Marc, no, I know too little of tcc to be a maintainer. I
am just a bystander interested in where this area of CompSci is
heading -- fast scripting becoming a commodity.

I guess it depends on who becomes the next maintainer. Does the
community want "Rob II"? This is not to say Rob did anything
wrong, he is perfectly entitled to act the way he did. But his
behaviour is destructive to participation, and finally,
destructive to his own participation in what most people expect to
be a shared project.

In the long run, I would rather see a few people with CVS commit
access rather than someone going out on a limb with _another_
unofficial repository. Plus, another unofficial repository that is
suddenly abandoned will waste more of the community's time and
effort. From my bystander's viewpoint, Rob has both helped and
hurt the development of tcc.

Sure, there are a lot of nice replacements for CVS. The lowest
common denominator is probably not sexy, but it provides the
lowest barrier to participation, and it will be there for the long
term. I guess I am too conservative (and respectful of owners) an
engineer for the more agile crowd; using older tools is a bit less
efficient, but it won't kill me to do as Romans do in Rome.

Well, anyway, all of this is just idle talk unless someone wants
to seize the bull by its horns, so I'll just sign off from this

Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

reply via email to

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