() Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> () Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:16:23 +0000
> It would be nice to have workbook and guile-scripts as peers of > guile-core, since that forms the minimal set to reproduce "cvs > checkout hack" of yore. (Basically, the cvs-module "hack" > included only those three cvs-modules.) I'm not aware that this "hack" collection has been doing anything for us recently. At least, it's true that guile-core does not currently depend on workbook, as it did once. It's only value would be for history browsing. Granted, that history is shallow; interest quickly moved away from the non-guile-core cvs modules. I'm sure there is stuff in workbook and guile-scripts that is still useful, but I prefer to import it lazily (and as and when it becomes a priority). That will also allow us to consider where each imported item should go within the Git repository. I urge you to reconsider. It's no big deal to import them and leave them be (for historians). You can even make them read-only. Wouldn't it make sense for guile-www to be a separate Savannah project? Yes. If Guile maintainers don't mind, i can pursue that angle. More precisely, i would create a Guile-WWW project on Savannah (w/ myself its sole administrator), make a Git repo available, shutdown the gnuvola guile-www Git repo, and post an announcement to the guile-user list. In case this sounds like I'm singling out guile-www, I've actually always had a problem understanding the structure and existence of the Guile CVS modules other than guile-core - and I think the fact that many of them are obsolete and/or bitrotted is a clue that this is a problem in practice. Yes, there's a lot of hoarding of lost bits, there. However, i think singling out Guile-WWW is fine; it has undergone continued development, whereas the others have not. thi
