Roger,

This sounds like a good idea. As I understand it, this would be primarily intended for things built on top of ProofPower, e.g. new theories, but wouldn't exclude projects that contain the entire OpenProofPower source code base if, for example, they need lower-level integration with ProofPower or are even experimental new features of ProofPower. Is that right?


Personally, I am happy with GPL (2 or 3).

I have used Subversion on a few projects and found it too inflexible. Without access to the Subversion repository a number of things aren't possible. (Simply being connected to the internet doesn't necessarily solve this: in my case, the Subversion server was only visible from an internal company network.) Whilst the Subversion working copy is local to a machine, without visibility of the repository I couldn't see the log of previous commits, nor make any commits. Working on more than one commit was a pain. (Sometimes, I found that a particular enhancement required a logically separate enhancement to be made first...) Fortunately the Git-Subversion interface worked quite well and I was able to use Git locally to prepare a series of commits and upload them once I was connected to the Subversion repository.

My preference is Git but, having read about Mercurial, I would be happy to work with that. Or possibly Darcs - another distributed version control system. Definitely not Subversion though!

Regarding source code hosting, I can't offer any insight into the relative merits except to point you at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_software_hosting_facilities

Phil


Roger Bishop Jones wrote:
Rob and I have been discussing creating a publicly hosted project for contributions from/to the ProofPower community.

We have not got very far yet in settling details, but the proposal so far is to use google code and to use GPL for the overall project licence. So far as I understand it there is nothing to prevent individual contributors from making their contributions available under additional more liberal licences (then a user gets the choice of which licence to comply with). That makes sense to me for things similar to "maths_egs" which would be like subprojects, but not necessarily for the kind of thing one does with patches. In the former case I would expect that each user or each subproject would get its own directory in the repository, but not in the latter.

We would have a choice of svn or mercurial as repository.
I have not used either so opinions on which would be best would be appreciated. (I've been on CVS for a long time, but I use it only in a very simplistic way since I don't have any real collaborations going on)

I think the system should cover either substantial pieces of work which result in a database with one or more new theories, or patches.
Ideas on how this all might work would be appreciated.

I agreed to set up the project, possibly I'm not the best person, but I will do it unless we get a better offer.
Of course, it doesn't have to be just one administrator.

Anyone interested, anyone got any ideas or opinions?

Roger Jones

_______________________________________________
Proofpower mailing list
Proofpower@lemma-one.com
http://lemma-one.com/mailman/listinfo/proofpower_lemma-one.com





_______________________________________________
Proofpower mailing list
Proofpower@lemma-one.com
http://lemma-one.com/mailman/listinfo/proofpower_lemma-one.com

Reply via email to