--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I believe we should list them all. Each developer has a choice of the > source code control mechanism that fits his needs and interests. > Gaby and Waldek seem to like SVN. Bill likes Darcs. The silver version > uses SVN/git. The main gold version will continue using the ARCH/CVS > tools. > > The only "end-user visible" systems should be the ARCH/CVS versions.
Erm. It may be a good thing I didn't change AxiomSources. I was under the impression we were going to the following for "official" use: Silver: GIT/svn Gold: CVS ARCH, as I understand it, is not really undergoing active development any more. I think in such a case we should not encourage active work in that tool. If we want an alternative to CVS for Gold and we want to keep SVN for development only, I would suggest adding a GIT repository for Gold as well. (Maybe a branch?) Darcs and Mercurial can stay put as alternatives - Bill is syncing them to something and they are actively developed tools. ARCH, however, seems to have become a bit of a dead end unless I am behind the times. Can we at least make a tiered structure: Tier1: As above. The default "public face" for Axiom sources. Tier2: "Alternative" methods. Darcs, Mercurial, etc. Tier3: The "archive" page, listing all branches and systems tried with Axiom. If anyone gets that far, presumably they know what they are doing. Cheers, CY ____________________________________________________________________________________Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer