My only comment on the sites: 1) github = source control, 2) rubyforge = mailing list, 3) codeplex = issue tracker/binary distro, 4) ironruby.net = documentaiton
1 and 2 are pretty set, I see no reason to change from them. 3 is probably fine as well, though having source control and issue tracking in one location may be desirable. 4) Using gh-pages is an interesting idea, is ironruby.net being hosted at Microsoft's expense or one of the team members? That would probably have some bearing on that. Regardless, I'd rather see a nice README first. :) On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Mike Moore <blowm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think this would be too difficult to work around. There is already > some process that replicates changes from the IronPython's CodePlex repo to > IronRuby's GitHub repo. If the current monolithic project structure were > broken up into submoldules, you could have just IronPython's CodePlex being > replicated to an IronPython git repo. >> This I agree with. The current repo structure is counter-intuitive IMHO. -- Michael Letterle IronRuby MVP http://blog.prokrams.com _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
