One more advantage of moving to MELPA as our distribution system is that we can 
register mmm as a dependency, instead of packaging it ourselves.

On 04/20/2015 03:49 PM, David Aspinall wrote:
> Hello Clément, all,
> This is a very timely message!  I have indeed started to think of making this 
> migration again.  Although I don't have a lot of time to work on it, I would 
> like to see it done.  There is an old attempt here:
> but it didn't get updated and indeed we could do a better job with the user 
> names.  I'll take a look at your attempt soon (which tool did you use?).
> I agree that we probably need to set a cut-off date and disconnect the old 
> CVS repo, the sync options don't look robust.  What I could most do with help 
> is converting the packaging/publishing tools to use the github repo.  (The 
> web pages also badly need replacing but I'm not sure if anyone would have the 
> stomach to do that?)
> I'm slightly wary of needing to manage merge requests so I thought of using a 
> GitHub organisation for this to share the job and to host a central repo.  
> Hence:
> If anyone on this list would like to join, please tell me your GitHub user 
> name.
>  - David
> On 20/04/2015 19:29, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
>> Hi Pierre and David (and proofgeneral-devel),
>> There were talks a while ago on the mailing list about a migration to git. I 
>> think this would be really cool. I experimented with various export options, 
>> and came up with the repo at . 
>> The problem with the process that I used is that it makes it hard to 
>> incrementally track changes (we would need to migrate once and for all).
>> Most of the history seems to have been preserved just fine, but it would be 
>> nice to map CVS usernames to proper names and emails; the authors in the CVS 
>> tree seem to be [assia, crr, cxl, da, djs, fionam, gklein, hhg, joheras, 
>> lego, makarius, mark, markus, monnier, patrl, pier, proofgen, pxc, sberghof, 
>> tews, tms, weber]. Is there a list of names and emails somewhere matching 
>> these usernames?
>> It would be great to get feedback on the history as recorded in 
>> ; also, if a migration was 
>> eventually decided, I could help with the process. One reason for migrating 
>> to Git and hosting on Github would be lowering the barrier of entry to new 
>> contributors: many of the changes that I made in my company-coq plugin could 
>> in fact be ported to proof-general. It could also allow for simplified 
>> distribution of extensions and updated versions, via emacs' package system.
>> Clément.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

ProofGeneral-devel mailing list

Reply via email to