On Wednesday 07 Apr 2010 14:05, Phil Clayton wrote: > 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?
It had not occurred to me that a project might include the entire PP code base, and I had been thinking in terms of a set up which would not have accommodated that. I would be inclined to think fairly open ended, and set up something in the first instance which is aimed at things rather like "maths_eqs", which would cover the kinds of things which I was looked to have hosted. We could have one directory for such things, with subdirectories for each "contribution" and some rules for these to permit a uniform and simple way of installing whatever selection a user wants to make use of, and then have different top level directories for things which don't fit into that. Perhaps one directory for "maths_eq"-like contributions, one for contributions in the form of patches, and another for other kinds of things. The first two having some rules to provide uniform installation, the last consisting of contributions each of which makes up its own rules. > Personally, I am happy with GPL (2 or 3). Well, so far it looks like GPL3 on google with mercurial. On google you can have a different licence for documentation, one of the creative commons licences. Does anyone think that would be a good idea? > 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.) I don't understand the distinctions you are making here, and think that I need to. > 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. I'm not convinced that the problems you are experiencing reflect what would happen if we had a properly set up subversion repository. For this I think you need to have the repository on a server which runs a subversion service. Having a repository which is visible across the network by other means is not the same. I have a subversion repository at rbjones.com, but cannot provide a general service because rbjones.com is on a virtual host so all access to the repository has to be through my username. Also I don't understand your commit problem, why was it desirable to have a series of commits rather than just one? > 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! Well you and Rob are both against subversion so we can do Mercurial at google or Git at sourceforge, unless anyone prefers some other host. Both of these are blocked for Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, does anyone think that important? Roger Jones _______________________________________________ Proofpower mailing list Proofpower@lemma-one.com http://lemma-one.com/mailman/listinfo/proofpower_lemma-one.com