Christian MICHON wrote: > I also track vim-dev by usually doing this: downloading the > patches, and seldom use CVS/SVN. > > The biggest trouble I see is I need to format > patches/suggestions in the same way, if I do not have write > commit access.
OK but surely that comment is for another project, and is not relevant to how Vim is developed? > So actually Bram could do the whole maintainance of vim by > just using git-gui (graphical interface tcl/tk based). > > At this stage, it is so much easier than any of the competing tools. > It is a fact. > > I intend to re-build a clean git tree for vim (don't expect > it sooner than next week). I will be able to show graphically > why it would be easy to maintain vim with git. Good - I think that would be a first step. I accept that what you're saying is generally correct, but of course neither of us know what Bram actually does in detail, so it's a bit hard to predict whether another system would be easier than the work process he has developed over many years. >> I cannot see how using wget to download patches as above, or >> downloading the whole tree, would be an improvement for a user. > > being able to download a snapshot without having to apply all > patches ourselves can be quite a time saver, no ? Yes -- for a casual passer-by who wants to get the current source, it would be handy to be able to download the current source already patched. But for a repeat offender like myself, I would generally prefer to have an idea of what was changing, which I get from the patches. Also, I don't know who pays for the source server traffic, but I guess that person would prefer us to get incremental patches rather than just download everything again, because we can. John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
