> Martin Ruber wrote:
>> I have the feeling that "trunk" and "branches" is somewhat unfitting
>> for the Axiom project. Currently, wh-sandbox seems most useable to me.
Bill Page wrote:
> Although no one has named it as such, I think effectively we have the
> situation of a "fork" in the Axiom sources.
Tim pointed out to me that he has previously written to the email list
about this. He says that when one joins an open source project and
wants to "contribute" then it it is your responsibility to make sure
that your work gets merged into the main line (first Method above).
But no one has done this. And we now see 3 different things being
called "axiom"... Gold, build-Improvements and wh-sandbox. He says
this is a "fork" because there is no acknowledgment that this work
should go back into the main line.
I am afraid that Tim might be right about this, although I do think
there has been *some* acknowledgment that these changes *should* go
back into the main line.
I am too lazy now to search the archives, but hasn't Gaby once said that
he would like to merge BI and trunk? The only problem was that there are
now some patches that have been made on BI that are also picked up by
Tim and applied to trunk. (Gaby, please correct me if I am wrong.)
Unfortunately SVN does not track which patches have been applied already
so a simple
svn merge or svk emerge
will result of a lot of conflicts since some (already applied) patches
would be unnecessary. Without a record of the svn revision numbers that
merging is a terribly hard task.
Nevertheless, to go forward, I'd like to ask Tim: Do you allow Gaby to
merge his autoconf code into trunk even if you don't understand it?
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
