[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Tinycc-devel] Re: using CVS
[Tinycc-devel] Re: using CVS
Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:14:31 +0800
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> KHMan wrote:
>> Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> [snip snip]
>>> [snip snip]
>>> grischka, what is the state of the CVS sync?
>> grischka hasn't replied to this, so I'll say a few words. I have
>> sent grischka hg both export-style and log-style patches; he has
>> drawn up a preliminary classification list for the patches. I
>> haven't checked the Savannah CVS to see if there's anything new in
>> there yet.
> It's amazing that you are still confident that funneling all patches
> through one person to wind up in CVS is better and more useful than
> using a distributed SCM... I won't believe it until I see it happening.
Good Lord. Lay off the Red Bull.
I didn't say it will definitely work or that I was confident or
anything like that. I didn't reject distributed SCMs. I only
*suggested* sync'ing hg/git with CVS (as a nod of respect to
Fabrice's position as owner and to make easier the release of new
unstable versions) and I volunteered to *try* to sync Rob's tree.
*That's* *all*. I am *not* *rejecting* distributed SCMs in favour
of CVS at all. In fact, I kept asking when someone will step up
and host a new hg/git tree for semi-official tcc development. I
fully support that. Developers can keep using hg or whatever.
Packagers of tcc can decide to pick whatever they see fit for
packaging. It's not mature enough to be called stable software
anyway, so it's "buyers beware".
The (1) attempt ("possibly foolish", in my own words) at trying to
sync the CVS, and (2) continuing development using somebody's
Mercurial tree has *absolutely* *nothing* to do with each other.
(2) can proceed regardless what happens to (1). Perhaps if, and I
mean, *if*, it happens to work out well, then (1) might catch up
with (2). If it doesn't, then there are various options open to
the tcc community.
So I am just trying and grischka has volunteered on his own to
deal with the CVS bit. So, please let us give him some time and
stop the pointless and senseless disparaging.
The recent patch and the ensuing discussion means that having a
Mercurial host to pull from and push updates to will be Real Nice.
If only people would take action instead of talk. Updating the CVS
is not an option now. grischka needs some time to get things done.
> Sorry to be negative here, but this is an obvious disadvantage to me.
While I have tried very hard to be neutral, some of you guys keep
making wild assumptions about my purported biases, etc. It seems
to me that some people have problems with such projection of
negativity. For example, in one reply a distributed SCM supporter
kindly tells me:
I understand that you are not familiar (and seemingly even
hostile) to the [sic] distributed version control, but you
don't need to force your view to others.
More projection and speculation, yet that person did not reply to
my discussion about git development models. In fact, given his use
of Linux as an example of distributed git development, hgbook says
Linux is almost fully pull, an even more extreme position than me.
It truly makes me wonder why some people keep projecting such
negative and non-existent perceptions about others.
Instead of having so much "negative energy" against the sync'ing
attempt, why don't someone register a Mercurial host somewhere so
that everyone can continue work? I did suggest using the official
CVS at first, then I suggested semi-automatic sync'ing later when
it became clear that distributed SCMs are preferred. I have been
suggesting and discussing and people jump all over me with
distorted perceptions. Jesus.
Now that changes may be starting to pile up, somebody should host
a repo where people can pull from, somewhere. Regardless of all
the theoretical talk of branching and distributed development, let
us have that "common denominator" first. Never mind all the talk
about fully distributed whatever, we need that one host to
continue development. At least one. Anyone?
Well, all the distributed SCM supporters on this list, especially
the vocal ones, should take action... we're all waiting. All of
you guys can continue with tcc development regardless of the CVS
sync'ing effort. So, just get on with it...
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Re: [Tinycc-devel] TCC crashes on invalid structure reference, KHMan, 2007/11/13