Hi Ralph, Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, has someone though about where we were now if NAG had given Axiom > (including a autoconf build environment) to Tim? > > We had something like BI but probably totally undocumented. Why cannot > we take that position now. I am sure that if the tests work out fine, > why shouldn't we quickly work with autoconf? I really have no objection to the use of autoconf. There is a huge investment of knowledge encapsulated into that system which we would be remiss to ignore. I do not see a conflict between me advocating ASDF and autoconf, BTW. > I wait for Gaby to submit a patch. I think that will be the better > road than simply switch to wh-sandbox and make some people angry. We > should stay together as a community. Please. I totally agree. All I hope for is that the patch is documented and is in keeping with the clearly stated goals of the project. I want to be able to understand such a patch in detail, without having to second guess the authors intent. I am encouraged by Gaby's statements w.r.t his willingness to expand on the details if something is not clear. This is precisely the attitude we need if we hope to make documentation a priority for the project. > If Axiom is as well know as Linux then we may become much more > restrictive which patches go into Axiom. Then it is time to really > "force" people to submit LP patches. But now we should make Axiom > attractive!!! I believe we all have to agree that there exists a common goal. I dont think there is a fast path to an amicable result. I have enough people telling me that they want something done yesterday. Axiom, I hope, is an oasis from such expectations. Sincerely, Steve _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
