On 11/03/2006 10:22 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I'm very happy to see Tim is making changes more visible now, than waiting
| > for ages before seeing light. The main reason I originally volunteered to
| > maintain Silver is that I do believe in "live sources". Tim suggested
| > at the time that he did not have time do maintain too many branches.
| > It therefore was a natural thing for me to volunteer to take on the
| > job. Now, if Tim has more time to do the job, I'm all for it.
|
| > However, I see practical issue here: (1) first, we should not
| > have one single person as authority to
| > commit changes.
|
| We are speaking here _only_ of the changes that go to the next Gold
| release.
we are talking of Silver, right?
Right. Gold=axiom--main--1 only gets patches every two months.
The gold-to-be=axiom--silver--1 is the branch that Tim commits to in
order to prepare the next gold.
In my understanding we requested that in order to let axiom-developers
see how the current gold gradually develops into the next gold. We all
agreed that Tim commits to gold. Since now that thing is called
axiom--silver--1 does not change that.
axiom--silver--1 is mirrored on sourceforge /silver and is where people
should branch from (which is currently not done because /trunk and
/silver exist simultaneously).
Up to now silver in the form of axiom--silver--1 is maintained by Tim to
assure quality for the next gold release.
build-improvements has been branched from (a not so perfect copy of)
silver (which was actually gold=axiom--main--1--patch-49 at that time,
if I remember correctly).
I haven't yet completely understood how Gaby wants the development
process. Gaby certainly has quite a lot of experience with development
on gcc. So we all would be happy to learn.
Gaby, could you post how you think Axiom development should work? (You
should probably avoid the usage of Gold/silver/bronze.) Just post your
dream. Where should be the main source? How many stages should be there
before something is released? How is quality ensured? What _roles_ (not
persons) should be responsible for what.
Actually, I should ask the same from Tim, but I have the impression I
somehow already understand his model.
Only if we have a clear picture what the options are, we can discuss how
we clear the current confusion or how we agree on another development model.
I found the discussion up to now not very fruitful. To me it seemed that
it is still not clear what Silver actually is. I also have the
impression that Gaby wanted something else when he opted to maintain
Silver. Names can sometimes be misleading and I think this is now what
we have. Tim-Silver is not the intention of Gaby-Silver.
So please Gaby, try to make clear what you like even if you have already
said that several times before. We must somehow settle the problem that
you and Tim obviously have different understanding of "Silver".
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
