Hello, On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 07:22:02AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 01:26:06AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 04:44:07PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > > I actually maintain it, and many of my other packages, with tla/Arch. It's > > > > > in my personal repository over at arch.debian.org. Thanks for the > > > > > offer, though. > > > > Well, this means there are some ocaml related packages who are then in a > > > > separate repository than the rest of the ocaml packages. I wonder if > > > > this is a good thing. > > > > > > Yes, it is, or at least is not a bad thing. pkg-ocaml-maint is a > > > repository just for collectively maintained packages or for maintainers > > > that wants someone else to work on those packages. > > > > > > I've many packages on my laptop which are not on pkg-ocaml-maint and > > > that's definitely not a problem. The same applies to John's package IMO. > > > > > > In the past I used to keep those packages also on pkg-ocaml-maint, but > > > this turned out to be a problem due to syncing issues. > > Well, this would speak for moving the archive to arch, since it has > distributed repostiory model, but my small interaction with arch showed > me that it really is a pain to use, especially the tagging is very very > non-intuitive and non-documented. >
Arch seems to be very powerfull indeed... But i think that subversion just becomes non-alpha and is a really powerfull tool also. I can't make any choice between this two alternative... > But then, i hear there is also a svn-mirror or something such, which > allows you to make a distributed repository. You could then have a local > copy on your laptop, and sync with the main repository from time to > time. > Yeah.... really good idea. However, you could also create a XXX/branches/people/YYYY where you keep your own version of your work... sync when you can and merge with trunk when needed... There is always solution. I think we are maintaining only debian/ which doesn't handle more than 15 files, so i think it is not a big deal ( not so many changes pr day/per week ). > > Well, i think you know my point of view... I think it is better to have > > a main repository for all debian ocaml packages : > > - if a problem arise in one package, that you need help from another DD, > > it is the best way to share effort ( i have some experienced syncing > > with Mr Edward -- was really easy ). > > BTW, could you have a look at numerix. It has two RC bugs, and medwards > seems to have become MIA or something. > > > - if you are away, that some of us need to do some special things... it > > is better to have one working version ( for example i am used to > > inject watch file in debian/... I can do it on packages that doesn't > > belong to me, without the need to call every maintainer to say : hey > > it would be a good idea to do this or that ). > > - it permits to hijack some package ( like the thing i will do next week > > : hijacking numerix ). > > Ah, ok, you already intent to do so. > Off course, i still keep an eye on this work. By time i understand that he seems MIA ( there is a svn changelog explaining this when i change watch in numerix ). > > But i don't want to run a flameware, you can do what you want... > > > > I have just one question : > > Which are the packages that are in pkg-ocaml-maint but you don't > > maintain here anymore ? ( just to remove them ) > > Why, it would be better for Stefano to maintain a local SVN mirror using > the available tools for that. I don't have this problem, as i have no > laptop :) > > And please don't remove them, but add a README saying these are > Stefano's packages, and not in sync. > I think it is dangerous to keep a not synced packages.... But that is my personnal point of view. > > And optionally : > > What difficulties have you regarding svn ? ( at the beginning i think > > you were a pro pkg-ocaml-maint ) > > > > > > Would it be possible for you to setup a tla -> svn mirroring or > > > > something such ? > > > > > > This would be great, but only if John is willing to have someone also > > > working on his packages, otherwise it's completely useless. > > > > > > > Or at least add a directory in the svn repository, and have a README > > > > in there with instructions on how to access your archive ? > > > > > > Why? Users have "apt-get source" and this is enough IMO. > > > > > > > No, i think it is a good idea to have a list of ocaml related package... > > Just to know which ocaml related software are around.... > > I tend to agree. I removed all my local repositories, and work directly > from the SVN archive for all my packages now, well the ocaml related > ones. > Well, since i have sleep i have some more arguments pro central repo for ocaml : - maintaining package is more a "transverse" work, ie : when you package ocaml related work, you still do the same thing ( need to check this and this and this ) with some variant. So when you change the need for things A to things B ( ocaml-3.07 to ocaml-3.08 ) you could do it in one pass if you have a central repo, or you need to wait for a propagation of information if not. To my mind it is really useful to have a set of package which need the same knowledge in the same place. Kind regard Sylvain LE GALL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
