On 26/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rob, I appreciate the work you've done and encourage you continue in whatever environment is most productive for you.
Distributed source control is indeed one of those steps where you'll never want to go back. Personally I much prefer darcs, but agree on letting people who will really use the tools pick the tools. It's a shame if there's an organization limiting the use of something. Apart from browsing the source and versions (patches) via cgi's, darcs at least shouldn't require any server support, I think. I don't know about the others. If you have a copy of the repository, you have a working fork and you can generate patches that can be fed to another fork. I wish someone continues to make tcc useful. I would very much like to see it in many places. There aren't that many alternatives for C compilers and gcc (and esp glibc) are humongous. If only some simplicity and cleanness can be maintained. If the idea is to start expanding tcc, maybe it would be better off forked to keep the "tiny" branch and a more full featured different approach separate. -- I appear to be temporarily using gmail's horrible interface. I apologise for any failure in my part in trying to make it do the right thing with post formatting. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
