Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020, at 15:44, John Benediktsson wrote: > We need to figure that out. > > bi/bi*/bi@ > tri/tri*/tri@ > cleave/spread/apply > > It might make more sense to have a numerical syntax instead of words or > better yet would be to only have cleave/spread/apply and have shorter >

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

We need to figure that out. bi/bi*/bi@ tri/tri*/tri@ cleave/spread/apply It might make more sense to have a numerical syntax instead of words or better yet would be to only have cleave/spread/apply and have shorter symbolic syntax for it. Plenty of places where [ foo ] keep bar seems to

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

I'm curious, what does higher level cleave/spread/apply syntax look like? On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:48 AM John Benediktsson wrote: > I’ve always been excited to release 0.99 and then either 0.100 or 0.999 > depending on my mood. :-) > > We have various improvements under way, and would love some

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

I’ve always been excited to release 0.99 and then either 0.100 or 0.999 depending on my mood. :-) We have various improvements under way, and would love some contributions if anyone has interest and time. It’s unclear how long they will all take. Some examples: - ARM support - Cross compilation

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

Speaking of which, what is the defintion of Factor 1.0? Would be nice to get us to that milestone. — Dave Carlton da...@polymicro.net > On Dec 4, 2020, at 09:06, John Benediktsson wrote: > > This whole thing is funny. Let’s postpone a discussion until after we have > Factor working on

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

This whole thing is funny. Let’s postpone a discussion until after we have Factor working on ARM. :-) > On Dec 4, 2020, at 6:24 AM, sf.alexi...@spamgourmet.com wrote: > >  > If I were to become a master of computer science or a master in a craft, that > would mean I've mastered it. > > It

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

If I were to become a master of computer science or a master in a craft, that would mean I've mastered it. It doesn't mean someone got enslaved in the process. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, December 4, 2020 3:21 PM, Alexander Ilin wrote: > Right. I'm a master of philosophy, but

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

Right. I'm a master of philosophy, but I don't want to be main of philosophy. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, December 4, 2020 8:34 AM, SJain via Factor-talk - factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net wrote: > IMHO, master is such an honourable word. Ex. Master of a school or college, >

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, at 16:56, Dave Carlton wrote: > I'm getting cranky in my old age. Aplogies. > > Just don't have time for PC. Well, the good news is we thankfully run just fine on Mac, and there's ongoing work to add ARM support so you could use a tablet or Android phone

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

I'm getting cranky in my old age. Aplogies. Just don't have time for PC. — Dave Carlton da...@polymicro.net > On Dec 2, 2020, at 14:56, John Benediktsson > wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > I really don't disagree with you that much, however

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

Hi Dave, I really don't disagree with you that much, however there is likely going to be an increasing shift to main over the next few years, here's some background by GitHub on the topic: https://github.com/github/renaming And some information about the change to support init.defaultBranch

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

I see no reason to change existing project to use this stupid convention. If you want to use main for new projects, fine, but why take time and effort to fit into a new PC paradyme is asinine. Whats this world ocming to? master/slave, master/client in context of CS in no way reflects upon

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

Whether or not you or I agree on the impetus for the change, git upstream is changing their defaultBranch to main for new projects and I see no reason not to migrate with them. On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 8:31 AM Zoltán Kéri via Factor-talk < factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Dear Lord, I

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

Dear Lord, I am so sorry that this is a thing today. The main reason for the change is the word's ties to slavery, except the term within this context has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It is a bullshit move from whoever keeps pushing it, they have zero context-awareness. Welp. ‐‐‐

Re: [Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

Currently pushing to master, syncing to main. Hoping to make main the ... ahem... main branch as part of the git upstream defaultBranch changes. Not quite ready to switch over yet in our build CI environment but soon maybe? On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 8:11 AM Benjamin Pollack wrote: > I noticed

[Factor-talk] Should we default to main?

I noticed that we've got both main and master branches at this point. Should I be pushing to main or to master? Do we have a workflow, or we're just keeping them in sync for now? ___ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net