--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I believe we should list them all. Each developer has a choice of the
> source code control mechanism that fits his needs and interests.
> Gaby and Waldek seem to like SVN. Bill likes Darcs. The silver
version
> uses SVN/git. The main gold version will continue using the ARCH/CVS
> tools.
>
> The only "end-user visible" systems should be the ARCH/CVS versions.
Erm. It may be a good thing I didn't change AxiomSources. I was under
the impression we were going to the following for "official" use:
Silver: GIT/svn
Gold: CVS
ARCH, as I understand it, is not really undergoing active development
any more. I think in such a case we should not encourage active work
in that tool. If we want an alternative to CVS for Gold and we want to
keep SVN for development only, I would suggest adding a GIT repository
for Gold as well. (Maybe a branch?)
Darcs and Mercurial can stay put as alternatives - Bill is syncing them
to something and they are actively developed tools. ARCH, however,
seems to have become a bit of a dead end unless I am behind the times.
Can we at least make a tiered structure:
Tier1: As above. The default "public face" for Axiom sources.
Tier2: "Alternative" methods. Darcs, Mercurial, etc.
Tier3: The "archive" page, listing all branches and systems tried with
Axiom. If anyone gets that far, presumably they know what they are
doing.
Cheers,
CY
____________________________________________________________________________________Fussy?
Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay
it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
