I would really like to promote Bazaar as the distributed version control
system: http://bazaar-vcs.org . It takes the power from Git but makes it
alot easier to start with. It has, since Februari, become a part of GNU
and it's the favored tool for Ubuntu development. Please take a look:
http://bazaar-vcs.org/BzrVsGit
For blogging, the Trac has a blog plugin:
http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/FullBlogPlugin
Trac has alot of plugins, just take a look at: http://trac-hacks.org
There's just one catch; the Bzr plugin for Trac is still under
development. Although it works, it can show some strange behavior in
some particular functions. Nothing critical, but it's still under heavy
development: https://code.launchpad.net/~trac-bzr-team/trac-bzr/trunk
I think this will fit your requests pretty good.
Anyone else like to comment?
Regards
Daniel
Greg Haerr wrote:
: I'd like once again to push for a move to SVN (or better, Bazaar) and
: using Trac for the website. Then many people could contribute easier
: both on code but as well the documentation if held in the Wiki included
: with Trac.
:
: And it will probably make the project appear more active than it does
: currently, which hopefully generates more users and contributors.
I completely agree that the website makes the project appear
completely out-of-date. And we need a better source code
control system.
The original problem is that I've never been into keeping
up web pages (obviously). I put together a plan a couple
of months ago for a complete updating, which was to
include:
o automated blog-style website with wiki
o release of CVS as 0.92 as is, with 0.93 after some work/testing
o posting of updated API documentation
o move to git or other modern, distributed SCCS
Certainly nano-X should have a website that would allow
user-posting of FAQs, documentation of setup and configuration
issues, how to use fonts, images, transparency, etc. This
could all go in an open wiki. I would like a section that
would allow blogging (by me and some others) seperately
from the wiki. All the current docs could be re-formatted
fairly easily I think.
With regards to SCCS, I've always been nervous with allowing
write capability, because most contributers aren't testing on
enough platforms (and more importantly framebuffer modes.
However, this was done in the past for
the eCos and RTEMS platforms. I think moving to a git-style
SCCS would allow users to easily house and handle contributions
if not to the whole, then to each other. Lately few (in spite of
the way-outdated site) have volunteered many contributions.
And of course I have been behind with some contributions.
(I would like to have a full discussion on issues related
to back-contributions seperately).
Please comment.
Regards,
Greg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
